Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters - Court Reporters, Remote Depositions, Trial Presentation Services

SERVICES:  Trial Presentation Services, Trial Technician, and PowerPoint Creation

CASE CAPTION:  CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.; Civil Action No. 2:18cv94

CASE TYPE:  Rule 63 retrial

COURT:  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, Norfolk Division

LOCATION:  Norfolk, VA

JUDGE:  U.S. District Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes

LAW FIRMS:  Kramer Levin (Plaintiff) and Duane Morris (Defendant)

OVERVIEW:  Provided trial technician to display exhibits and PowerPoints at the trial.  Worked with tutorialist expert and client to fine-tune PowerPoint slides.  Used OnCue to create callouts and highlights of exhibits for use in PowerPoint.

UNIQUE ASPECT OF TRIAL:  The background of this case is unique in and of itself.  In 2020, Judge Morgan found that Cisco owed Centripetal $1.9B for patent infringement.  Just before issuing said finding, Judge Morgan informed the parties he had learned that his wife had just under $5,000 in Cisco stock.  On appeal, Cisco argued and won that the judgement should be vacated due to the Cisco stock.  The $1.9B was the largest patent infringement verdict in US history.

At the retrial, the unique aspect was definitely the limited amount of evidence presented.  Because this was being tried under Rule 63, each party only presented a tutorialist on the technology and then did closing arguments.  Initially, there were going to be several additional witnesses; however, those witnesses were scratched at the last second.  As noted above, this was a new judge,  but Judge Hanes did a great job with the technology and facts of this case.  She was prepared and attentive throughout the trial.

RESULT:  This was a bench trial and no Order has been issued.  This blog will be updated once an Order is issued. 

SERVICES: Trial Presentation Services, Trial Technician, and PowerPoint Creation

CASE CAPTION: Confidential

CASE TYPE: Breach of Contract

COURT: JAMS (Arbitration)

LOCATION: San Francisco, CA

ARBITRATOR: Alexander “Lex” Brainerd, Esq.

LAW FIRMS: Confidential

OVERVIEW: Provided trial technician to display exhibits and PowerPoints at the arbitration. Used OnCue to create callouts and highlights of exhibits for use in PowerPoint. Also assisted with Zoom/remote testimony, as this was a hybrid arbitration with some of the parties appearing n in person and some appearing remotely.

UNIQUE ASPECT OF TRIAL: This arbitration was conducted at the tail end of COVID so a lot of the COVID restrictions were still in place. Just prior to the start of the arbitration, one of the attorneys got sick so they had to participate remotely. This added another level of complexity, as we were continuously ensuring that attorney was receiving all of the evidence and testimony being presented. Several of the witnesses also appeared remotely. As a result, we utilized Zoom’s share screen function to display the in-person presentation to the remote participants. The combination of OnCue and Zoom worked seamlessly to show exhibits, videos, and PowerPoints.

RESULT: Confidential.

Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters has led the way in court reporting and litigation support technology for over 40 years, and we welcome the opportunity to assist you with any need you may have. If you would like to learn more about trial presentation services, trial technicians, and/or trial graphics, please do not hesitate to contact us. We would love to show you the multitude of services we have to offer. We look forward to making your life easier.

SERVICES:  Trial Presentation Services, Trial Technician, A/V Equipment Rental, and PowerPoint Creation

CASE CAPTION:  NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; 1:19-CV-01031

CASE TYPE:  Patent Infringement

COURT:  United States District Court for the District of Delaware

JUDGE:  Judge Richard G. Andrews

LAW FIRMS:  Kramer Levin (NextStep) and WilmerHale (Comcast)

OVERVIEW:  Providing trial technician to display exhibits, PowerPoints, and video depositions at trial.  Thomas & Thomas was also responsible for some of the A/V equipment and ensuring all the A/V equipment was setup correctly.

UNIQUE ASPECT OF TRIAL:  There were two unique aspects to this trial.  The first was that the Judge did not allow our team to put on a damages case.  Thus, our entire presentation was devoted to infringement and validity.  The other unique aspect of the trial was the courtroom was not completely wired like federal courtrooms normally are.  Here, we had to bring in a projector and connect it in such a way that both sides could black out the signal when displaying evidence that had not been admitted.  This is especially important in patent litigation, as there are voluminous amounts of exhibits and using physical copies to admit evidence would be burdensome and time consuming.  Normally, the courtroom is wired in a way that the Court controls what is shown to the jury and is not a responsibility of the parties.          

RESULT:  Infringement.  The jury issued a verdict finding Comcast’s Xfinity brand app indirectly infringed NexStep’s patent for a way of turning a remote control into a customer service “concierge device,” but cleared Comcast of claims of infringing a related patent.

On September 21, 2016, a jury found in favor of Finjan, Inc. and awarded them $15 million for Sophos’ infringement of their five asserted patents. This verdict followed a two-week trial before the Honorable William H. Orrick, III of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Specifically, the jury found that all asserted claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patents were literally infringed and valid.

Finjan was well-represented by Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Hannah Lee, Kris Kastens, and many other talented lawyers from the law offices of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel in Menlo Park, California.

Geoffrey S. Thomas, Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters’ Trial Presentation Specialist, worked closely with Kramer Levin's legal team to provide a seamless display of exhibits, demonstratives, and videotaped depositions. With each side limited in the amount of time they had to present their case, a quick, efficient presentation of the case was paramount. Precise clip creation and fluid direct and cross examinations helped Kramer Levin present its case with time to spare. Congratulations to Kramer Levin and Finjan on a job well done!