Revlis
I can see we have a problem here. I assumed from your posting that you have had litigation experience, but your reply indicates otherwise.
Expert witnesses are used by parties to prove certain elements of their case. There are two kinds of experts, testifying and consulting. Each party must identify their testifying experts. generally, parties do not have to identify their consulting experts.
Each party requests the names, addresses, curriculum vitae, the reports, all materials reviewed by testifying experts in forming their opinions. This is done through requests for disclosure, interrogatories and rquests for production.
After the parties have exchanged the information on their respective experts, they will give the produced documents to their rebuttal experts (testifying experts) and consulting experts to file a rebuttal report and help the attorneys prepare for a deposition of the other party's expert. They will also produce the rebuttal expert reports and everything they reviewed in forming their opinion.
After all of the reports are filed, you then give the other party notice of deposition and a subpoena duces tecum which lists items that you want the expert to produce at the time and place of the deposition.
Now I believe I have gotten you to the deposition itself. When you take the deposition of the opposing expert, you are performing an actual cross-examination. You assume that the judge will qualify the person as an expert and your job is to narrow playing field as tight as you can with respect to what he has reviewed, his experience and his opinion. You have to take him as far out on a limb as he is willing to go and then saw the limb off. You must be real sure to reiterate the materials he has reviewed, any experiments he has performed and the instructions he received from your opponent. You have to be sure that he has accomplished everything the client has asked him to do and that on the date of the deposition his only remaining task is to review the materials identified and testify at trial. You cannot leave that deposition without an agreement from the expert and his employer that any further work to be done will be provided to you and any new opinions that may be revealed at trial is also identified. You must not leave anything to chance or may be the subject of surprise.
Now, you should understand why the consolidation tends to take the dress rehearsal out of the picture. IDCC will be able to define and confine the opposing experts via agreements and depositions. All testimony will be given at the same time leaving no wiggle room to correct a presentation. This is extremely different from having Samsung experts give it a try with the same judge and then allow Nok to cover additional defensive arguments or expand on the unsuccessful efforts of Samsung four months later.
The experts in this case will be covering the patents, the phone systems and operations, obviousness, prior art, patent prosecution history at the USPO and other technical matters. As a final note, either side may object to the use of an expert by making a Daubert objection (a list of factors necessary to disqualify an expert provided in the case opinion). If you believe that an expert is a possible candidate for disqualification, you may pursue your facts during the deposition.
OK, I am worn out. The expert reports are a small portion of the case. The key is the presentation and it begins by narrowing and boxing the testifying expert at his deposition. You narrow his subject matter to the instructions his client has provided and then let him run on the subject as far as he will go so your rebuttal expert can point out the flaws in his recital of his opinion.
I really do not want to spend much more time on the consolidation issue. I am more than ok with it and I think your disappointment is founded on mistaken perception.
MO
loop
AI
