We have worked with attorneys to provide pre-trial research, code reviews, literature reviews, deposition reviews, and testimony at trial. In cases involving disputes over topics that are almost certainly unfamiliar to both judge and jury, expertise is not enough. The witness must be able to explain complex ideas simply and clearly. That is where we excel.
Case One (for the plaintif)
Company A purchased company B, a maker of data mining-based recommendation software used on web sites. Subsequently, some of the employees who had created the original product at company B formed company C to market a very similar product. Company A sued company C for violating the trade secrets A had acquired when it acquired B. The case depended largely on whether company C's central algorithm was essentially the same as the one claimed as a trade secret by A and B. The products were implemented in different programming languages and described in different terms. Michael Berry served as an expert for the plaintif reviewing thousands of lines of code, hundreds of e-mails, dozens of articles and depositions and then testifying very effectively that the products did, in fact, implement the same algorithm. The judge's decision incorporated much of Berry's testimony.
Case Two (for the defendant)
Company A submitted a proposal to company B to build a system for housing and mining call detail data for a long-distance company. As part of the proposal process company A revealed its proposed methodology which it considered to be a trade secret. Company B rejected A's proposal and built its own system in house. Company A sued claiming that company B would not have been able to build the system without having learned how from A's proposal. Much depended on what was and was not common knowledge about data mining techniques and parallel processing implementations at the time of the original proposal. Since Gordon Linoff and Michael Berry were deeply involved with both technologies at the time in question they were of immense value to the defense. They had personal knowledge of similar systems and were able to supply references that the attorney's would not have been able to find. Both Gordon Linoff and Michael Berry did pre-trial research and Michael Berry prepared an Expert Report for the court and testified at the jury trial. The court found that company B had violated some of the terms of the confidentiality agreement it and its employees had made with A, but not that B had relied on A's trade secrets. Because of this ruling, B did not have to pay the large damage claim that A was demanding.