Copyright Infringement Litigation Toolkit: Similarity Charts, Expert Reports, and Filtration Analyses

Summary. This toolkit collects the working documents that decide copyright similarity cases: the charts, logs, memoranda, expert report outlines, and trial forms that turn the doctrine of access, probative similarity, filtration, and substantial similarity into evidence. Each template states its purpose, its owner, and when to use it, and each is followed by drafting commentary tied to the governing statutes, rules, and cases. The first group builds the record with an element and proof matrix, a version and deposit log, an access chain log, and a probative similarity chart. The second group does the comparison: a master similarity and filtration chart, medium-specific charts for stories, music, and visual works, a software abstraction-filtration-comparison worksheet, a prior-art search protocol, and a filtration memorandum. The final group covers experts and trial, with a similarity expert report outline, a report audit and Daubert outline, an independent creation declaration, a source code review protocol, targeted discovery, jury instructions and a special verdict form, and a demonstrative exhibit protocol.

Two songs, two novels, or two programs can be argued about forever. A chart cannot. Copyright similarity cases are decided on paper long before anyone plays anything for a jury: in the exhibits to the complaint, the filtration analysis at summary judgment, the expert reports and the motions that test them, and the special verdict form. The side with the cleaner chart and the more disciplined method usually wins, and this toolkit is that paper.

How to use this toolkit

Each template states its purpose, its owner (who on the team should prepare it), and when to use it, then gives the template and drafting commentary. Bracketed capitals are placeholders. The forms are written for federal court and are neutral by design: a claimant uses them to build the case, and an accused party uses the same forms to take it apart. The doctrine behind every template is explained in Proving Copyright Infringement: Access, Substantial Similarity, and the Tests Courts Actually Use; the litigation sequence is in Litigating Substantial Similarity in a Copyright Case: A Practical Guide; and the pre-filing screen that tells you whether to use any of this is the Copyright Infringement Claim Evaluation Checklist: A Practical Checklist.

The short version. A claimant must prove ownership and copying of original expression, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), and copying splits into copying in fact (access plus probative similarity, or striking similarity) and unlawful appropriation (substantial similarity of what survives filtration). Every template below serves one of those steps, and the most common error in these cases, using the same list of similarities for both steps, is what Templates 4 and 5 are built to prevent.

Template 1: Element and proof matrix

Purpose: one table mapping every element and defense to the evidence that proves or defeats it. Owner: the lead associate, updated after each wave of discovery. When to use: from intake through the pretrial order; it becomes the skeleton of the summary judgment statement of facts and the jury instructions.

Drafting commentary. Build one row per element per work when several works are asserted, because statutory damages are awarded per work, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). The registration rows track 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) and Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (2019), and the remedies row applies 17 U.S.C. § 412. A timely certificate is prima facie evidence of validity, 17 U.S.C. § 410(c), so the matrix should show who bears which burden: the claimant proves copying, but in the Eleventh Circuit the defendant must prove that copied elements are unprotectable at the filtration stage, Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman, 959 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2020), and on profits the claimant proves gross revenue while the infringer proves deductions and apportionment, 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). The witness column doubles as the list for initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).

Template 2: Version and deposit control log

Purpose: proves which version of each work is in the case, and that it is the version the expert analyzed and the jury will see. Owner: a paralegal or litigation support specialist, working with each expert's team. When to use: at intake, before expert reports are served, and again when trial exhibits are designated.

Drafting commentary. Three lines of cases explain why this log exists. First, the registered work defines the comparison: for 1909 Act compositions the deposit copy controls, Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc); Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066 (2d Cir. 2024), which kept the famous recording's percussion and vocal performance out of the comparison in Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018). Second, a party that cannot produce the version it claims was copied may lose for that reason alone: a software plaintiff that could not produce the registered version of its code failed in Airframe Systems, Inc. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 658 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2011), another had no surviving copy of the version allegedly copied, General Universal Systems, Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2004), and a verdict was erased because neither side's code was in evidence, Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 841 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2016). Third, reconstructions are not originals: the best evidence rule barred drawings recreated after the fact, Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 808 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1987); Fed. R. Evid. 1002, with "original" and "duplicate" defined in Fed. R. Evid. 1001. Record a hash value for every native file; a certified hash supports self-authentication of data copied from a device or file, Fed. R. Evid. 902(14), and otherwise authentication runs through Fed. R. Evid. 901.

Template 3: Access chain log and dissemination record

Purpose: assembles access evidence as a dated chain from the work to the accused creators, and measures how widely the work circulated before the accused work was made. Owner: the associate running fact discovery; defense counsel keeps the same log and populates the gaps. When to use: before filing (as part of the reasonable inquiry required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)) and throughout fact discovery.

Part A: Chain of events

Part B: Dissemination before [ACCUSED CREATION DATE]

Drafting commentary. Access is shown by a chain of events or by wide dissemination, Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000), and either way the dates must precede creation of the accused work. Courts reject chains that stop at the front desk, Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2003); Loomis v. Cornish, 836 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2016), accept a specific intermediary with a working relationship to the creator, Gaste v. Kaiserman, 863 F.2d 1061 (2d Cir. 1988), and accept evidence of how an office routinely handled what it received, Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 241 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2001). For online works, Part B is usually where the case is won or lost: posts with a few dozen likes did not show access in Woodland v. Hill, 136 F.4th 1199 (9th Cir. 2025), and limited sales at fairs and on a website did not in Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entertainment Inc., 581 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2009). Third parties hold most of this evidence, so serve preservation letters early and follow with subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; a deposition of the receiving company under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) on its submission-handling practices often produces the missing link or the proof that there is none.

Template 4: Probative similarity chart

Purpose: proves or rebuts copying in fact with similarities that need not be protectable, and keeps those similarities out of the substantial similarity chart. Owner: the expert, with an associate checking every pinpoint cite. When to use: in the complaint (when the fingerprints are strong), in expert reports, and in briefing on striking similarity.

Drafting commentary. Courts adopted the label probative similarity to separate this inquiry from the later question of substantial similarity in protectable expression, Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1992); Repp v. Webber, 132 F.3d 882 (2d Cir. 1997). Everything counts here, which is exactly why the chart must stay separate from Template 5: a shared error is powerful proof of copying and still is not protectable expression. If access cannot be shown, the chart must support striking similarity, which means the expert must exclude independent creation, coincidence, and a common source, Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984); similarity of that kind can carry the case without proof of access, Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., 132 F.3d 1167 (7th Cir. 1997). The "In prior art?" column is the defense's best friend: a feature that appears in earlier works is weak proof that either party copied the other. Because subconscious copying still infringes, Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), a creator's sincere denial does not answer a strong chart.

Template 5: Master similarity and filtration chart

Purpose: the central document of the case. It lists every claimed similarity in expression, filters out what copyright does not protect, and states what survives and how much it matters. Owner: lead counsel, with the expert supplying the technical basis for each filtration call. When to use: before filing (the claimant's honest version), at summary judgment (both sides), and as an exhibit to the expert reports.

Header. Claimant's work: [TITLE, REGISTRATION NO., VERSION PER TEMPLATE 2]. Accused work: [TITLE, VERSION]. Governing test: [CIRCUIT AND TEST]. Claimed scope: [BROAD / THIN; REASON].

A worked sample. Suppose Harbor Lane Books publishes The Salt Ledger, a novel about a disgraced harbor pilot, and two years later Northlight Studios releases a streaming series called Brine. The author's first list has forty similarities. After filtration the chart looks like this, in part:

Forty similarities became one strong element and one arguable combination. That is a real claim, but a narrow one, and the damages theory and the settlement value should be built around the couplets and the sequence rather than the premise.

Drafting commentary. Every "No" in the Survives column needs a doctrine and a record source, not an adjective. The categories come from 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) and Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879) (ideas and methods), Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980) and Corbello v. Valli, 974 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2020) (facts and asserted truths), Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967) (merger), Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986) (scènes à faire), 17 U.S.C. § 103 and Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 338 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2003) (material the claimant did not originate), and 37 C.F.R. § 202.1 (short phrases). Before marking a row "No," test whether the combination survives: an original selection and arrangement of unprotectable elements is protectable, Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995); Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical & Scientific Communications, Inc., 118 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1997), but the claimant must say which elements are combined and how, Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc), and a commonplace combination is not protected, Gray v. Hudson, 28 F.4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022); Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066 (2d Cir. 2024). Weigh quality as well as quantity: many small fragments taken from across a work can add up, Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998), and differences elsewhere do not excuse it, Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1936). Resist padding the chart. The Ninth Circuit has called lists of similarities "inherently subjective and unreliable," especially when they emphasize "random similarities scattered throughout the works," Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). The defense should resist the opposite temptation, because a court may not dissect a work into unprotectable pieces and ignore how they were arranged, Hanagami v. Epic Games, Inc., 85 F.4th 931 (9th Cir. 2023). Treatises: 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[A] (comprehensive nonliteral and fragmented literal similarity) and § 13.03[B] (filtration).

Template 6: Literary and audiovisual comparison chart

Purpose: applies the element-by-element comparison courts use for novels, screenplays, films, television, and games. Owner: an associate who has read or watched both works in full, reviewed by the expert if one is used. When to use: with a motion to dismiss or the opposition to one (the works are usually before the court), and at summary judgment.

Character sub-chart (if a character is claimed independently): physical qualities; conceptual qualities; traits consistent across appearances; especially distinctive features; where the accused character matches.

Drafting commentary. The element list is the Ninth Circuit's extrinsic test, Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990), applied after filtration, Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002), and the cases show how often the match occurs only at the level of premise: Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006); Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 1994); Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010). The "Level" column puts Judge Hand's abstractions ladder to work, Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930): the higher up the ladder the match, the closer it is to an idea. Stock scenes and settings are filtered in every circuit, Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986); Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996). A character claimed on its own must satisfy the delineation test, DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015); Daniels v. Walt Disney Co., 958 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2020). In the Second Circuit the court also compares total concept and feel, Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2001), and on a motion to dismiss the works themselves control over the pleading's descriptions of them, Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Development Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010); Abdin v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., 971 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2020). Attach the works to the complaint or the motion so the court can read them, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). Surveys of viewers rarely help: substantial similarity is not a concept familiar to the public, Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983).

Template 7: Music comparison chart

Purpose: sets out the musical comparison bar by bar so that a judge, a jury, and an opposing expert can check it. Owner: the musicologist, with counsel confirming that the claimant's column uses the registered version. When to use: in expert reports, summary judgment papers, and trial demonstratives.

Header. Claimant's composition: [TITLE; DEPOSIT COPY OR REGISTERED VERSION PER TEMPLATE 2]. Accused composition: [TITLE; SOURCE OF TRANSCRIPTION]. Keys and tempos: [AS WRITTEN]. Transposition or tempo normalization used in this chart: [NONE / DESCRIBE]. Copyright analyzed: [COMPOSITION / SOUND RECORDING].

Drafting commentary. For 1909 Act works the deposit copy, not the recording, defines the composition, Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc); Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066 (2d Cir. 2024). Filter the building blocks first: descending chromatic lines, arpeggios, and short scale fragments in Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc); an eight-note ostinato built from a scale fragment in even rhythm in Gray v. Hudson, 28 F.4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022); and a common four-chord progression with syncopated harmonic rhythm in Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066 (2d Cir. 2024). The chart cannot be reduced to a count of identical notes, Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004), and a claimant relying on a combination must identify the elements and their arrangement and request an instruction on it, Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Disclose every transposition and tempo adjustment on the face of the chart, because an undisclosed normalization is the easiest cross-examination in a music case. If the claim concerns the sound recording, only duplication of the actual sounds infringes, 17 U.S.C. § 114(b); short samples are judged for de minimis use in most circuits, VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2016); Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004), but not in the Sixth Circuit, Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005). Registration practice for songs is covered in Registering a Copyright in a Song: A Practical Checklist.

Template 8: Visual works and photograph chart

Purpose: separates what a photographer, illustrator, or designer actually authored from the subject, the medium, and the conventions of the genre. Owner: counsel with a photography, illustration, or design expert. When to use: with the complaint or motion to dismiss (images are usually before the court), and in expert reports.

Overlay protocol. (1) Show the images side by side at their native proportions before any overlay. (2) Scale both to a common reference and state the scale factor. (3) Disclose every crop, rotation, color change, and transparency setting. (4) Never morph one image into the other. (5) Keep the native files and the overlay project file for production.

Drafting commentary. Originality in a photograph lies in rendition, timing, or creation of the subject, Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co., 377 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), and never in the subject itself: a leaping pose inspired by ballet was an idea in Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2018), and a product shot of a bottle left only a thin copyright in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 323 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Harney v. Sony Pictures Television, Inc., 704 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2013) and Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2000). Lifelike depictions of nature receive thin protection, Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003), and so do features whose range of expression is narrow, Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010). A specific rendering style and its details, by contrast, can be infringed, Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). For textiles and surface designs, the original selection and arrangement of motifs and colors is the protectable core, Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995); Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 338 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2003), and close copies can support summary judgment for the claimant, Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2017). For useful articles, only separable features count, Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405 (2017).

Template 9: Software abstraction-filtration-comparison worksheet

Purpose: performs and documents the three-step analysis courts require in software cases, level by level, with a reason and evidence for every filtration call. Owner: the software expert; counsel owns the legal categories and the record citations. When to use: in expert reports, at a copyrightability hearing, and at summary judgment.

Header. Programs and versions (Template 2); languages and size; repositories reviewed; review conditions (Template 15); comparison tools used and their settings.

Filtration codes. E: efficiency or merger (few practical ways to do it). X1: hardware or operating system constraints. X2: compatibility and interoperability requirements. X3: industry standards and user expectations. M: method of operation. P: public domain or open-source code (note the license). L: licensed third-party code. D: facts and data. S: programming conventions and stock interface elements.

Drafting commentary. The worksheet follows Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) and the six levels described in Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993), which also expects findings at each level. Apply filtration to literal copying too, Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996), and expect command codes, input formats, and interface hierarchies to be contested: Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997); Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335 (5th Cir. 1994); Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995); Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004). The Federal Circuit held the Java API declaring code copyrightable, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and the Supreme Court resolved that dispute on fair use, Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021), so a defendant who reimplemented an interface should brief both protectability and fair use, including the intermediate copying cases, Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992); Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000). Two procedural points recur. Courts may hold a pretrial copyrightability hearing, and a claimant that cannot identify with specificity the elements it claims, and show they are protected, loses, SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd., 64 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2023); in the Eleventh Circuit the defendant bears the burden of proving that copied elements are unprotectable, and substantiality is measured against the claimant's program, not the defendant's, Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman, 959 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2020). A claimant that never performs the analysis or never puts the code in evidence loses regardless, General Universal Systems, Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2004); Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 841 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2016). Where the technology is beyond the court, consider a court-appointed expert under Fed. R. Evid. 706, as the district court did in Altai, or a special master under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53. Background on software protection and registration is in Legal Protection of Software: Copyrights, Patents, Trade Secrets, and Contracts and Copyright Registration of Computer Programs.

Template 10: Prior-art search protocol and log

Purpose: finds earlier works that share the features in dispute, which can defeat originality, supply a common source, or show that a feature is commonplace. Owner: a consulting expert for exploratory searches; the testifying expert for the searches the report relies on. When to use: before the complaint or the first response letter, and again before expert reports.

Protocol.

1. List the features to be searched, using the numbered rows of Templates 4 to 9.
2. Fix the cutoff date: before the claimant's creation date (originality and common source) and before the accused work's creation date (alternative sources available to the defendant).
3. Choose sources suited to the medium: published sheet music, recording catalogs, hymnals and folk collections for music; genre anthologies and screenplay databases for stories; stock libraries, museum collections, and reverse image search for visual works; open-source repositories, standards documents, and textbooks for software.
4. Record every search when it is run, including searches that found nothing.
5. Keep a copy of every hit, with its date and source, and give it a Bates number.
6. Rate each hit for closeness to the feature searched, and explain the rating.
7. Before the testifying expert sees a search, decide whether it should be run through the consulting expert instead.

Drafting commentary. The two great reversals of music verdicts turned on this work: the expert in Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984) never addressed coincidence or a common source, and in Gray v. Hudson, 28 F.4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022) the ostinato's elements were commonplace and their combination was not original. Prior art also shows when a combination is too familiar to protect, Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, 120 F.4th 1066 (2d Cir. 2024), and when a design merely follows nature, Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003); Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971). Run exploratory searches through a consulting expert, whose work is ordinarily protected, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D); anything the testifying expert considers must be disclosed with the report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Template 11: Filtration memorandum

Purpose: the brief-ready analysis that asks the court to decide protectability, element by element, before anyone compares anything. Owner: lead counsel, built on Templates 5 to 10. When to use: with a motion to dismiss where the works are before the court, at summary judgment, or at a pretrial copyrightability hearing.

Outline.

1. Question presented. Whether the elements [CLAIMANT] identifies are protectable expression, and if so whether the accused work is substantially similar in those elements under [CIRCUIT TEST].
2. The works. The registered version (Template 2) and the accused version, attached as exhibits.
3. The governing test. The circuit's formulation, who decides it, and the burden at each step.
4. The claimed elements. The list the claimant has committed to in interrogatory answers or expert reports, quoted exactly. If the claimant has not committed to a list, say so and ask the court to require one.
5. Filtration by category. Ideas and methods; facts; merger; scènes à faire and external constraints; public domain and third-party material; short phrases. For each element: the category, the authority, and the record citation.
6. Selection and arrangement. Whether the claimed combination is original, identified with specificity, and present in the accused work.
7. What survives and why it is not substantially similar (defense) or why a reasonable jury could find it is (claimant).
8. Proposed findings. Numbered findings the court can adopt, one per element.

Drafting commentary. Courts may decide protectability as a matter of law and may use a pretrial copyrightability hearing to do it; a claimant that cannot identify with specificity the elements it asserts, and show they are protected, loses, SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd., 64 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Burdens differ: in the Eleventh Circuit the defendant must prove unprotectability at filtration, Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman, 959 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2020), so draft the memo as an offer of proof, not just an argument. Give the court findings it can adopt; the Tenth Circuit expects them at each level of abstraction, Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993). The summary judgment standard is the usual one, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), and courts apply it to similarity cases regularly, Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., 754 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2014); Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., 554 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 2008); Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 1994); Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006). On the pleadings, the works control over the complaint's description of them, Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Development Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010). The general standards are in Summary Judgment Under Rule 56: Winning and Surviving Before Trial.

Template 12: Similarity expert report outline

Purpose: a report structure that satisfies the disclosure rule and survives a reliability challenge, for musicologists, software experts, and visual or literary experts alike. Owner: the expert writes it; counsel checks it against this outline and the rules. When to use: opening reports and, with the changes noted, rebuttal reports.

1. Assignment. The questions the expert was asked, stated neutrally.
2. Summary of opinions. Each opinion in one or two sentences, numbered.
3. Qualifications. Training, experience with this kind of comparison, publications in the previous ten years, and testimony at trial or deposition in the previous four years.
4. Materials considered. Every work, version, transcription, file, and prior-art item considered, by Bates number, including material the expert considered and rejected.
5. Method. How similarities were identified, how the works were transcribed or normalized, how prior art was searched (Template 10), and how significance was assessed.
6. Copying in fact. Probative similarities (Template 4), kept separate from what follows.
7. Protectable expression. The filtration analysis (Templates 5 to 9), with the expert's technical basis for each category and the legal standard supplied by counsel stated as an assumption.
8. Comparison. What survives and its importance within the claimant's work.
9. Responses to anticipated counterarguments. Common sources, independent creation evidence, alternative explanations.
10. Exhibits. Charts and demonstratives the expert will use.
11. Compensation and signature.

Rebuttal variant. Replace sections 6 to 8 with a point-by-point response to the opposing report, keyed to its paragraph numbers, and add any prior art the opening expert missed.

Drafting commentary. The report must contain a complete statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered, exhibits, qualifications and publications, prior testimony, and compensation, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2); absent a stipulation or order, reports are due at least 90 days before trial and rebuttal reports within 30 days after the other side's disclosure. Admissibility runs through Fed. R. Evid. 702, which since the 2023 amendment requires the proponent to show by a preponderance that the opinion rests on sufficient facts, a reliable method, and a reliable application of that method, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); experts may rely on material reasonably relied on in the field, Fed. R. Evid. 703, and may be required to disclose underlying facts, Fed. R. Evid. 705. Scope depends on the circuit: in ordinary-observer circuits expert testimony traditionally goes to copying in fact rather than the lay comparison, Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946), with exceptions for specialized audiences, Dawson v. Hinshaw Music Inc., 905 F.2d 731 (4th Cir. 1990); Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 2003), and for software, Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992); in the Ninth Circuit experts address the extrinsic test only, Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977); Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004). The report should never tell the jury what the law is, and it should state legal standards supplied by counsel as assumptions. For retention and disclosure forms, see the Expert Witness Toolkit and the Expert Deposition Toolkit: Outline Frameworks, Reliance Material Requests, and Rule 26 Protection Maps.

Template 13: Expert report audit and Daubert outline

Purpose: a structured read of the other side's similarity report that produces deposition topics and, where warranted, a motion to exclude. Owner: the associate assigned to the opposing expert, with your own expert. When to use: the week the report arrives, and again after the expert's deposition.

Motion outline. (1) The opinion and its method, quoted. (2) The standard: the proponent's burden under Fed. R. Evid. 702, decided by the court as a preliminary question, Fed. R. Evid. 104(a). (3) Grounds, each tied to a subsection of Rule 702: insufficient facts (wrong version, no prior art); unreliable method; unreliable application (the analytical gap between data and conclusion, General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)); and lack of helpfulness. (4) Rule 403 as a backstop, Fed. R. Evid. 403. (5) Relief: exclusion, limitation to particular opinions, or an evidentiary hearing.

Drafting commentary. The audit questions track the failures in the reported cases: an expert who had never compared popular songs and who ignored common sources, Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984); a combination theory built from commonplace material, Gray v. Hudson, 28 F.4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022); and a case presented without the works themselves, Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 841 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2016). Keep admissibility and weight distinct. A court ruling on summary judgment may not choose between credible, conflicting experts, Repp v. Webber, 132 F.3d 882 (2d Cir. 1997), so a Daubert motion should attack method, not conclusions. The amended rule and its case law are covered in Expert Witnesses After the 2023 Amendment to Rule 702: Daubert, Disclosure, and Cross-Examination and the Expert Disclosure and Daubert Challenge Checklist: A Practical Checklist; for the deposition itself, see Taking and Defending an Expert Deposition: A Practical Guide.

Template 14: Independent creation declaration

Purpose: presents the accused creator's process as evidence, with dated exhibits, for summary judgment or trial. Owner: defense counsel drafts from interviews and the collected files; the creator reviews every word. When to use: summary judgment, a preliminary injunction opposition, or as the outline for direct examination.

DECLARATION OF [NAME]

I, [NAME], declare:

1. I am [ROLE] at [COMPANY]. I [wrote / co-wrote / designed / programmed] [ACCUSED WORK]. I make this declaration from personal knowledge.
2. My background in [FIELD] includes [TRAINING AND EARLIER WORKS], several of which use [THE FEATURE AT ISSUE]; copies are Exhibits [__].
3. On [DATE] I began work on [ACCUSED WORK] at [PLACE]. Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of [FILE NAME], which I created on or about [DATE] and stored in [SYSTEM]; its metadata shows [DATES]. [REPEAT FOR EACH DRAFT, SESSION FILE, SKETCH, OR COMMIT.]
4. In creating [ACCUSED WORK], I drew on [SPECIFIC EARLIER WORKS, GENRE CONVENTIONS, PUBLIC DOMAIN MATERIAL, LICENSED ASSETS], copies of which are Exhibits [__].
5. I first learned of [CLAIMANT'S WORK] on [DATE], when [HOW]. Before that date I had not seen, heard, or received it. [ADDRESS EACH ACCESS ROUTE THE CLAIMANT ALLEGES, SPECIFICALLY.]
6. The other people who contributed to [ACCUSED WORK] were [NAMES], and their roles were [ROLES].
7. Since [DATE] I have preserved all files and communications relating to [ACCUSED WORK] under the litigation hold dated [DATE].

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [DATE].

[SIGNATURE]

Drafting commentary. An unsworn declaration in this form may be used in federal court wherever an affidavit would otherwise be required or permitted, with narrow exceptions, 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Write only specific, verifiable denials: because subconscious copying infringes, Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000), "I never copied" proves little, while "I did not have an account on that platform until 2024" can be checked and believed. The dates do the work. In the companion article's worked example, the producer's earliest draft postdated the download of the claimant's demo, which helped the claimant more than the producer; find that problem before the other side does. Authenticate each exhibit through the declarant or a custodian, Fed. R. Evid. 901; certified hash values can make data self-authenticating, Fed. R. Evid. 902(14); and creation logs kept in the ordinary course are easier to admit, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Files lost after the duty to preserve arose can lead to curative measures or, on a finding of intent to deprive, sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). For AI-assisted work, the contribution logs in the Generative AI Authorship Toolkit: Disclosure Statements, Contribution Logs, and Ownership Clauses double as creation records.

Template 15: Source code review protocol

Purpose: a protective order rider that lets each side's experts compare code without the code leaking. Owner: the associate negotiating the protective order, with input from both experts on the tools they need. When to use: at the Rule 26(f) conference in any case involving software, before any code is produced.

1. Definition. "Source Code Material" means human-readable code, comments, build scripts, version history, and documents describing code at the same level of detail, designated HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL: SOURCE CODE.
2. Review location. Source Code Material is made available only on a standalone, non-networked review computer at [LOCATION], during business hours on [__] business days' notice.
3. Tools. The producing party will install the text editors, search tools, and comparison and similarity tools the reviewing party identifies at least [__] days in advance, with the settings the reviewing party specifies. No other software may be installed.
4. Prohibited conduct. No copying, photographing, transmitting, or recording; no personal devices in the review room [EXCEPT A NON-NETWORKED NOTE-TAKING COMPUTER]; notes may not reproduce more than [__] consecutive lines of code.
5. Printouts. The reviewing party may request printouts of no more than [] consecutive pages and [] pages in total, reasonably necessary for a report, filing, deposition, or trial, on watermarked and Bates-numbered paper. Additional pages by agreement or order.
6. Who may review. Outside counsel of record and up to [] experts, each disclosed [] days before access with a curriculum vitae, current and past employers, and consulting relationships for the previous [__] years. Objections are resolved by motion.
7. Logs. The producing party keeps a sign-in log; the reviewing party keeps a log of printouts.
8. Use in the case. Printouts may be marked as deposition and trial exhibits; filings that reproduce code are filed under seal under the court's local rules.
9. Tool output. Comparison reports that reproduce code are Source Code Material.
10. Return or destruction. Within [60] days after final disposition, with a certification.

Drafting commentary. Protective orders issue for good cause, including to protect confidential research, development, or commercial information, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Fights over who may see code turn on whether a person is involved in competitive decisionmaking, not on whether that person is in-house or outside counsel, U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and a court may deny an in-house lawyer access when the risk of inadvertent use is too great, Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1992). Agree on comparison tools and their settings in the protocol itself, because an expert who ran a tool the other side could not replicate hands the other side a Daubert argument. Related forms are in the Confidentiality Toolkit: Protective Orders, Designation Challenges, and Sealing Motions, the Protective Order and Sealing Checklist: A Practical Checklist, and, for cases that pair copyright with trade secret claims, the Trade Secret Litigation Toolkit: Identification Statements, Two-Tier Protective Orders, and Forensic Protocols.

Template 16: Targeted written discovery and subpoenas

Purpose: a short set of requests aimed at the issues that decide similarity cases: who created the accused work and how, what the claimant actually claims, and where the work traveled. Owner: the associate running fact discovery. When to use: the first discovery wave, so that answers arrive before expert reports.

Interrogatories (Fed. R. Civ. P. 33)

1. Identify each person who participated in conceiving, creating, or revising [ACCUSED WORK], and describe each person's role and dates of participation.
2. Describe chronologically how [ACCUSED WORK] was created, identifying each draft or version, its date, its author, and where it is stored.
3. Identify every work, reference, sample, template, library, or other source consulted, used, or incorporated in creating [ACCUSED WORK].
4. State when and how each person identified in Interrogatory No. 1 first became aware of [CLAIMANT'S WORK].
5. (To the claimant.) Identify with specificity each element of [CLAIMANT'S WORK] that you contend is protectable expression copied by [DEFENDANT], and for each, the corresponding element of [ACCUSED WORK].
6. (To the claimant.) Identify every person to whom, and every place where, [CLAIMANT'S WORK] was sent, shown, performed, posted, or distributed before [DATE].

Requests for production (Fed. R. Civ. P. 34)

1. All drafts, versions, session files, sketches, and repositories (with full version history) for [ACCUSED WORK].
2. Documents sufficient to show how [DEFENDANT] received, logged, routed, and handled unsolicited submissions during [PERIOD].
3. All communications referring to [CLAIMANT], [CLAIMANT'S WORK], or [ITS TITLE].
4. Documents sufficient to show gross revenue from [ACCUSED WORK] and each deduction [DEFENDANT] contends applies.
5. (To the claimant.) The registered version and deposit of [CLAIMANT'S WORK] and all earlier drafts.
6. (To the claimant.) Documents showing the dissemination of [CLAIMANT'S WORK] before [DATE], including analytics, sales, and royalty data.

Requests for admission (Fed. R. Civ. P. 36)

1. Admit that [DEFENDANT] received the email attached as Exhibit [__] on [DATE].
2. Admit that [CREATOR] downloaded [FILE] on [DATE].
3. Admit that Exhibit [__] is a true and correct copy of [ACCUSED WORK] as first released.
4. (To the claimant.) Admit that [FEATURE] appears in [PRIOR WORK], published before [DATE].
5. (To the claimant.) Admit that the effective date of registration of [WORK] is [DATE].

Third-party subpoenas (Fed. R. Civ. P. 45): access and play logs for [PRIVATE LINK OR ACCOUNT]; submission records of [LABEL, PUBLISHER, AGENCY, OR STUDIO]; files held by outside collaborators.

Drafting commentary. Interrogatories are limited to 25, counting discrete subparts, so spend them on identification and creation history. Interrogatory No. 5 is the foundation for any later motion arguing that the claimant never identified protectable elements, SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd., 64 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Requests for admission are deemed admitted if not answered or objected to within 30 days, and in Jones v. Blige, 558 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2009) unanswered requests on substantial similarity and access decided the case. Keep requests proportional to the needs of the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and negotiate the collection of creative files in the ESI protocol; see Negotiating an ESI Protocol and Managing E-Discovery Costs.

Template 17: Jury instructions and special verdict form

Purpose: instructions and a verdict form that put each element to the jury separately, so the verdict means something and can be reviewed. Owner: trial counsel, starting months before the pretrial conference. When to use: with proposed instructions under the scheduling order, and at the charge conference.

Instruction outline.

1. The claimant's ownership, and the effect of a timely registration certificate.
2. The work as registered (for 1909 Act works, the deposit copy).
3. Copying in fact: direct evidence, or access (a reasonable possibility, not a bare possibility) plus similarities probative of copying, or striking similarity.
4. Independent creation as evidence that the defendant did not copy.
5. Unprotectable elements, listing any the court has ruled unprotectable as a matter of law.
6. Selection and arrangement, if requested and supported by the evidence.
7. Unlawful appropriation under the circuit's test.
8. Defenses submitted to the jury (license, fair use, limitations).
9. Damages: actual damages, profits and apportionment, or statutory damages and willfulness.

Special verdict form.

1. Did [CLAIMANT] prove that it owns a valid copyright in [WORK]? Yes ___ No ___
2. Did [CLAIMANT] prove that [DEFENDANT] copied [WORK], considering all the evidence including the evidence of independent creation? Yes ___ No ___
3. Did [CLAIMANT] prove that [ACCUSED WORK] is substantially similar to protected expression in [WORK]? Yes ___ No ___ [IF A COMBINATION THEORY WAS SUBMITTED: identify the combination found.]
4. [IF SUBMITTED] Did [DEFENDANT] prove that its use was a fair use? Yes ___ No ___
5. Actual damages: $. Profits attributable to the infringement, after deductions and apportionment: $. [OR] Statutory damages per work: $____. Was the infringement willful? Yes ___ No ___

Drafting commentary. A party must request instructions and object on the record, or review is limited to plain error, Fed. R. Civ. P. 51, which is what defeated the claimant's selection-and-arrangement argument in Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Special verdicts are authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 49 and make the verdict reviewable element by element; the Ninth Circuit's Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions, chapter 17, is a common starting point, and several other circuits publish pattern copyright instructions. Fair use is a mixed question: the jury may find the underlying facts, but the ultimate question is one of law, Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021). Preserve every ground for judgment as a matter of law before the case goes to the jury, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50; similarity verdicts are set aside after trial more often than most, Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984); Gray v. Hudson, 28 F.4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022). The post-verdict forms are in the Post-Trial Toolkit: Rule 50 Renewals, New Trial Briefs, and Remittitur Analyses.

Template 18: Demonstrative exhibit protocol

Purpose: rules for the charts, overlays, and audio comparisons that juries remember, so that they are admitted and cannot be turned against you. Owner: trial counsel with each expert. When to use: when exchanging trial exhibits and before any hearing at which demonstratives will be shown.

1. Classify each exhibit. A summary of voluminous evidence offered to prove content is evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 1006; an aid offered only to help the jury understand evidence or argument is an illustrative aid under Fed. R. Evid. 107, is not evidence, and does not go to the jury room without consent or an order.
2. Produce the underlying data and native files with each exhibit.
3. Label every transformation on the face of the exhibit: transposition, tempo change, crop, scale, color correction, code reformatting.
4. Show side by side first. Overlays and synchronized playback come second; morphing never.
5. Present the work as the law defines it. For 1909 Act music, perform the deposit copy rather than play the commercial recording.
6. Exchange on a schedule: [] days before use, objections within [] days, meet and confer, unresolved disputes to the court.
7. Keep a log: exhibit number, description, source data, transformations, author, date disclosed, objections, and ruling.

Drafting commentary. Rule 1006 and the new illustrative-aid rule, Rule 107, both took effect in their current form on December 1, 2024; know which one you are invoking before you offer the exhibit. Any demonstrative can be excluded if its tendency to mislead substantially outweighs its value, Fed. R. Evid. 403, and an overlay or audio file must still be authenticated, Fed. R. Evid. 901. In music cases the performance itself is contested: the comparison is to the work as registered, Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc); Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018), and a performance that adds unregistered elements invites a motion. Disclose summaries with the pretrial exhibit list under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3).

Frequently asked questions

Who should build the similarity chart, the lawyer or the expert? Both, in sequence. Counsel frames the legal categories and pinpoint citations; the expert supplies and owns the technical analysis. Drafts and most attorney-expert communications are protected, but facts, data, and assumptions counsel supplied are discoverable, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B)-(C), so a chart the expert merely adopted invites a damaging cross-examination.

Do we need a consumer survey? Rarely. Substantial similarity is not a concept the public knows, and a survey could not create a jury question in Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983). Surveys appear occasionally on damages and on what a specialized intended audience perceives.

Should we ask for a court-appointed expert? Consider it in software cases where both sides' experts are credible and the judge must make filtration findings. The court in Altai appointed its own expert with both parties' consent, under Fed. R. Evid. 706. The parties lose some control and usually share the cost.

What if the claimant will not say what it claims? Serve Interrogatory No. 5 from Template 16, move to compel if the answer is evasive, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a), and ask for a schedule that requires the claimant to commit before expert reports. A claimant that never identifies protectable elements with specificity loses, SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd., 64 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

Do these templates work at the Copyright Claims Board? In shortened form, yes. The Board decides most claims on written submissions with limited discovery, so a short version of Templates 2, 3, and 5 attached to the claim or the response often does more than argument. See the Copyright Claims Board Toolkit: Claim Statements, Opt-Out Decisions, and Settlement Templates.

Practical takeaways

• Keep two charts: probative similarity (Template 4) proves copying; the filtration chart (Template 5) proves or defeats unlawful appropriation.
• Lock down the registered version of each work at intake, and make every expert analyze that version.
• Every filtration call needs a doctrine and a record source, and every combination claim needs to say which elements are combined and how.
• Run the prior-art search early, through a consulting expert, and assume the other side will run one too.
• Write expert reports to the 2023 version of Rule 702: disclosed method, sufficient facts, reliable application, no legal conclusions.
• Draft the jury instructions and verdict form before summary judgment; they show what the record still lacks.

This document is general information, not legal advice for any particular situation; the law changes, and the facts matter.

Related Documents

Related Articles

• Proving Copyright Infringement: Access, Substantial Similarity, and the Tests Courts Actually Use: the doctrine each template puts into practice.
• Expert Witnesses After the 2023 Amendment to Rule 702: Daubert, Disclosure, and Cross-Examination: the admissibility standard for similarity experts.
• Expert Depositions: Taking Apart the Opinion, Protecting Your Own Expert, and Building the Daubert Record: testing a musicologist or software expert before trial.
• Legal Protection of Software: Copyrights, Patents, Trade Secrets, and Contracts: where copyright fits among the protections for code.
• Copyright Damages and Remedies: Statutory Damages, Profits, Injunctions, and Fees: the remedies rows of Template 1.
• Post-Trial Motions in Federal Court: Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, Remittitur, and Relief From Judgment: how similarity verdicts are challenged after trial.

Related Guides

• Litigating Substantial Similarity in a Copyright Case: A Practical Guide: the step-by-step sequence these templates support.
• Taking and Defending an Expert Deposition: A Practical Guide: preparing and examining the experts behind Templates 12 and 13.
• Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12: A Practical Guide for Plaintiffs and Defendants: early motions built on Templates 6 and 8.
• Negotiating an ESI Protocol and Managing E-Discovery Costs: collecting drafts, session files, and repositories.

Related Checklists

• Copyright Infringement Claim Evaluation Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the pre-filing screen for either side.
• Expert Disclosure and Daubert Challenge Checklist: A Practical Checklist: disclosure deadlines and challenge grounds.
• Expert Deposition Preparation Checklist: A Practical Checklist: preparing for the opposing expert's deposition.
• Registering a Copyright in Software: A Practical Checklist: getting the registered version that Template 2 depends on.

Related Toolkits

• Expert Witness Toolkit: retention, disclosure, and challenge materials.
• Expert Deposition Toolkit: Outline Frameworks, Reliance Material Requests, and Rule 26 Protection Maps: outlines and requests for expert discovery.
• Confidentiality Toolkit: Protective Orders, Designation Challenges, and Sealing Motions: the protective order that Template 15 rides on.
• Deposition Use Toolkit: Designation Charts, Objection Logs, and Impeachment Scripts: using creator and expert testimony at trial.
• Post-Trial Toolkit: Rule 50 Renewals, New Trial Briefs, and Remittitur Analyses: forms for the motions that follow a similarity verdict.
• Claim Construction Toolkit: Charts, Briefs, Expert Declarations, and Hearing Materials: the patent-side analogue to a copyrightability hearing.