Preparing for a Markman Hearing: A Practical Guide

Summary. How to run the phase of a patent case that usually decides it.

Before anything else: know what you are preparing for

A Markman hearing is not a trial and it is not a motion hearing. It is a proceeding in which a federal judge, with no jury present, decides what a set of words mean as a matter of law under Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The output is an order, sometimes a few pages and sometimes a hundred, assigning meanings to disputed claim terms.

The reason it matters so much is structural. Patent infringement is measured limitation by limitation against the claims, and 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires the claims to define the invention. Once the meanings are fixed, the infringement question frequently answers itself. So does invalidity: a construction broad enough to cover the accused product is often broad enough to read on prior art.

Three practical consequences follow, and they should shape everything you do:

1. Preparation starts at the pleading stage, not two months before the hearing. Your infringement or invalidity contentions commit you to positions that will be quoted back at you.
2. Every proposed construction must be tested against both infringement and validity. A construction that wins one and loses the other is not a win.
3. The record you build determines the standard of review. Under Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318 (2015), factual findings about extrinsic evidence get clear-error deference on appeal while the ultimate construction is reviewed de novo. Build accordingly.

PART ONE: THE FOUNDATION

Step 1 — Build the intrinsic evidence file

Do this first, and do it thoroughly, because everything downstream depends on it.

Gather the complete file wrapper. Not just the issued patent — the entire prosecution history, obtained from Patent Center or a commercial provider. You need:

• Every office action and every response
• Every claim amendment, in redline if available
• Every interview summary (these are short, easy to overlook, and occasionally devastating)
• Every information disclosure statement and the references cited
• Notices of allowance and reasons for allowance
• Terminal disclaimers and petitions

Extend the file to related applications. Parents, continuations, divisionals, continuations-in-part, and reissues. Statements made in a parent can limit a child. Statements made in a child can, in some circumstances, inform a parent. Foreign counterparts are usually not intrinsic evidence in United States litigation, but inconsistent positions taken before the European Patent Office make excellent cross-examination.

Extend it to post-grant proceedings. If the patent has been through inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311, the patent owner's response and any expert declarations are fair game and often contain the clearest statements of scope in existence. Patent owners who argued narrowly at the Board to avoid prior art will be reminded of it.

Build a term-by-term index. For every candidate disputed term, collect every appearance in the claims, every appearance in the specification with column and line numbers, and every appearance in the prosecution history. This index is the single most valuable work product of the entire phase. Everything else is argument built on it.

Practical tip: do the index before you decide what your constructions are. Lawyers who form a position first tend to find only the evidence that supports it, and then get ambushed at the hearing by a passage they skimmed.

Step 2 — Define the person of ordinary skill

The POSITA is the reader through whose eyes the claims are construed, and the definition is contested more often than newcomers expect. A POSITA with a Ph.D. and ten years of experience reads a technical term one way; a POSITA with a bachelor's degree and two years reads it another.

Write your definition early and make it specific. A usable definition names the field, the education level, and the experience level, and sometimes adds access to particular tools or literature. "A person having a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and two to three years of experience designing embedded control systems, or equivalent experience" is usable. "A skilled artisan in the field" is not.

Make it consistent across the case. Your POSITA definition for claim construction, for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for enablement under § 112(a), and for indefiniteness must all cohere. Parties who inflate the POSITA to defeat obviousness and then deflate the POSITA to argue a term was unclear get caught.

Have your expert adopt it in a declaration. Courts want the definition supported, not asserted.

Step 3 — Read the accused product and the prior art before choosing terms

This sounds obvious and is routinely skipped under time pressure. You cannot select terms intelligently without knowing what turns on them.

For each candidate term, answer three questions in writing:

• If we win this term, what happens? Summary judgment? A better damages case? Nothing?
• If we lose this term, what happens? Same analysis, reversed.
• What does our proposed construction do to validity? Run it against the top three prior art references. If the construction reads on them, you have proposed your own invalidity theory.

Make a one-page grid. Columns: term, our construction, their construction, infringement consequence of each, validity consequence of each. This grid is the agenda for every strategy meeting for the next three months.

PART TWO: SELECTING AND DRAFTING

Step 4 — Triage the terms

Most districts with local patent rules require an exchange of proposed terms and then a meet-and-confer to narrow. Many judges impose a hard cap — often ten terms, sometimes five. Assume you will get fewer slots than you want.

Tier your candidates.

• Tier 1 — Dispositive. A win produces judgment or eliminates a patent. These always get slots.
• Tier 2 — Consequential. A win meaningfully narrows the case, changes the damages base, or forecloses a theory.
• Tier 3 — Housekeeping. Terms where you disagree but the outcome does not change. Trade these away in the meet and confer; they buy goodwill and sometimes buy a slot.

Beware the "plain and ordinary meaning" trap. If you genuinely have a scope dispute, saying "no construction necessary" does not preserve it — the Federal Circuit's decision in O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008), holds that a court must resolve a real dispute about scope rather than leaving it to the jury. If you want plain meaning, explain what plain meaning is and why the other side's construction adds a limitation the claim does not contain.

Consider whether to raise indefiniteness. A term of degree — substantially, about, approximately, sufficient — invites a challenge under Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014). But indefiniteness must be shown by clear and convincing evidence given the presumption of validity in 35 U.S.C. § 282 and confirmed in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011). Raise it where the specification supplies no objective baseline for measurement. Do not raise it reflexively; a weak indefiniteness argument costs credibility on the terms that matter.

Look for hidden means-plus-function terms. Functional labels — module, unit, mechanism, element, engine, component — can trigger § 112(f) treatment even without the word "means," under the en banc Williamson v. Citrix framework. If the specification discloses no corresponding structure (and for software functions, no algorithm), the claim may be indefinite. This is one of the highest-value defense arguments available and it is frequently missed.

Step 5 — Draft constructions that a judge can actually use

A proposed construction is a definition, not an argument. Test every one against these criteria:

It must be substitutable. Drop it into the claim in place of the term. Does the claim still read as English? If not, redraft.

It must not import the accused product or the prior art. "Does not include a solenoid" is not a construction; it is a conclusion. Courts reject outcome-shaped constructions and sometimes punish them by adopting neither side's proposal.

It must be supported by intrinsic evidence you can cite by column and line. If your only support is a dictionary, expect trouble — Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), demoted dictionaries below the specification for exactly this reason.

It must be shorter than you want it to be. Long constructions have more surfaces to attack and more opportunities to introduce ambiguity of their own. If your construction requires three clauses and a proviso, you probably have two disputes bundled into one term.

Prepare a fallback. Judges frequently adopt neither party's construction. A party that has thought about the acceptable middle ground and can articulate it at the hearing is far better positioned than one that has only a maximal position. Do not put the fallback in your opening brief unless the strategy calls for it — but have it ready when the judge asks "what if I said something like this?"

Step 6 — Prepare the expert declaration

Expert declarations in claim construction serve three legitimate purposes and one illegitimate one.

Legitimate: teach the technology. How does the system work? What problem was the field trying to solve? What was conventional at the priority date?

Legitimate: establish the POSITA. Education, experience, what such a person would have known.

Legitimate: establish disputed facts about meaning at the time. Was there an accepted technical convention? Did the term have a recognized meaning in the field? These are precisely the subsidiary factual findings that receive clear-error deference under Teva, and they are the only mechanism by which a favorable district court ruling gets appellate protection.

Illegitimate: assert the answer. A declaration that says "in my opinion, spaced apart means physically separated by at least one centimeter" without technical support is advocacy in a lab coat. Judges discount it and sometimes say so on the record.

Practical points:

• Expert testimony is subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its 2023 amendment, and while claim construction declarations are rarely the subject of a formal Daubert motion, a declaration that cannot survive 702 will not persuade.
• Have the expert read the entire prosecution history. Cross-examination on a passage the expert has not seen is a bad afternoon.
• If the other side's declaration makes factual assertions you dispute, consider whether to depose. Many local rules permit a limited claim construction deposition. Depose when you need admissions for the brief; skip it when your best argument is that the declaration is unsupported and the deposition would only let them fix it.

PART THREE: THE FILINGS

Step 7 — The joint claim construction statement

Most local patent rules require a joint filing that lists agreed constructions, disputed terms with each side's proposal, and supporting evidence. Treat it as a substantive document, not a form.

Agree to everything you can. Every agreed construction is a term the judge does not have to think about, and judges notice which side is being reasonable. But agree only to constructions you can live with through trial and appeal — an agreed construction is generally binding and unappealable.

Get the evidence citations right. These lists get long and errors propagate. Assign one person to verify every column-and-line citation against the patent. A miscited passage in a joint statement is embarrassing; a miscited passage that the other side corrects in their brief is worse.

Preserve your positions explicitly. If you contend a term is indefinite and propose an alternative construction in case the court disagrees, say so clearly. Courts have held that a party who offered only an indefiniteness argument waived any construction position.

Step 8 — Write the brief

Structure that works:

1. Introduction — two or three paragraphs stating what the invention is, what the dispute is about, and why your reading is right. No string cites.
2. Technology background — neutral in tone, accurate, with figures. Assume an intelligent reader with no background in the field.
3. Level of ordinary skill — your definition and support.
4. Legal standards — short. Every judge in a patent case has read Phillips. Two pages is plenty unless a specific doctrine (§ 112(f), indefiniteness, disclaimer) needs development.
5. Term-by-term analysis — the body. For each term: the claim language, the proposed constructions side by side, the intrinsic evidence in order (claims, specification, prosecution history), then extrinsic evidence, then a response to the anticipated counterargument.
6. Conclusion — a table of proposed constructions.

Habits that persuade:

• Quote generously and in context. The most common self-inflicted wound in claim construction briefing is the truncated quotation that collapses when restored. Opposing counsel will restore it.
• Confront the bad passage. Every case has one — a sentence in the specification that cuts against you. Address it in your opening brief on your own terms rather than letting the other side introduce it.
• Use the figures. A construction argument that can be shown with an annotated figure is worth three paragraphs of prose.
• Do not hide the ball on consequences. Most judges want to know what turns on the ruling.

Step 9 — Build the technology tutorial

Many courts hold a tutorial, either separately or at the start of the hearing. Some accept video submissions. This is the only part of the proceeding where you get to teach without an opposing narrative running simultaneously, and it is consistently underused.

Teach the field, not the case. A tutorial that argues is a tutorial the judge discounts. Explain what the technology is, how the relevant components work, what the state of the art was at the priority date. If the judge finishes the tutorial understanding the technology, you have already won something.

Use physical objects when you can. A cutaway of an actual filter housing, a circuit board on a document camera, a working demonstration. Judges remember objects.

Keep it to twenty to thirty minutes unless the court invites more. Do not narrate every figure.

Check the local practice. Some judges want a joint tutorial; some want separate ones; some want video in advance; some want none at all. Ask at the scheduling conference.

PART FOUR: THE HEARING

Step 10 — Prepare the argument

Prepare a two-minute version of each term. Judges interrupt. If you cannot state the term, your construction, your best intrinsic support, and the consequence in two minutes, you will not get it out.

Build a term binder for the bench. For each term: the claim, the competing constructions, and the three to five key passages with the operative language highlighted. Many judges will use it during the hearing and some will use it while writing the order.

Prepare for the question you do not want. For every term, identify the single worst passage for your side and rehearse the answer out loud. "Your Honor, that passage describes the preferred embodiment; the applicant never stated the invention was limited to it, and claim 6 confirms it is not" is a good answer delivered calmly. The same content delivered defensively is not.

Know the fallback and know when to give it. If the judge signals that neither construction works, a party that can immediately offer a workable alternative often gets it adopted. A party that insists on its maximal position may get a construction written by the court that suits nobody.

Watch for the sua sponte construction. Judges sometimes construe terms the parties did not dispute, particularly when an argument depends on an unstated construction. If you sense this coming, address it rather than hoping it goes away.

Step 11 — At the hearing itself

• Argue the terms in the order the court wants. Ask at the outset.
• Be honest about what your construction does. If it broadens the claim in a way that implicates prior art, and the judge asks, answer directly. Evasion on this point is memorable.
• Do not read your brief. The judge has it.
• Take notes on the judge's questions. They telegraph the order, and they tell you what to address in any post-hearing submission.
• If live testimony is permitted, keep direct short and let the expert teach. Cross-examination in a Markman hearing is usually about establishing that the other expert did not read the prosecution history or cannot identify intrinsic support.

PART FIVE: A WORKED EXAMPLE

The case. Ferrous Dynamics, Inc. v. Kettleworth Industrial LLC, filed in the District of Delaware. Ferrous asserts a patent on an induction heating system for industrial ovens. Claim 1 requires "a controller configured to modulate the coil current in response to a temperature signal received from a sensor thermally coupled to the workpiece."

Kettleworth's ovens use an infrared pyrometer that measures surface temperature from twelve inches away and never touches anything.

The team. Lead counsel Marisol Trent; associate Devan Okonkwo running the intrinsic evidence index; technical expert Dr. Priya Raghunathan, a materials engineer with twenty-two years in industrial heating.

Week 1–3: the file. Devan builds the index. Two findings emerge. First, the specification uses "thermally coupled" eleven times and in every instance describes a thermocouple bonded to or embedded in the workpiece. Second — the important one — during prosecution the applicant overcame a rejection over a reference disclosing optical pyrometry by arguing that "the claimed sensor is thermally coupled to the workpiece, establishing conductive heat transfer, in contrast to Ostrander's non-contact radiometric measurement."

Marisol's reaction is the correct one: this case is probably over, and we are on the wrong side of it. Ferrous is her client.

Week 4: the grid. They build the term grid anyway, because the analysis is not finished. If "thermally coupled" requires contact, there is no literal infringement, and Festo estoppel — from Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) — likely forecloses the doctrine of equivalents, because the phrase was added by amendment to overcome prior art. The presumption of surrender can be rebutted, and Ferrous will argue the amendment was tangential to non-contact sensing, but the argument distinguishing Ostrander makes that a hard sell.

Week 5: the decision. Marisol identifies a second patent in the family, asserted in the same case, whose claims recite "a sensor positioned to receive thermal energy from the workpiece" — language that was never amended and never argued. She recommends dropping the first patent from the case and concentrating on the second. Ferrous resists; the first patent is the one with the earlier priority date and the better damages story. Marisol writes a memo laying out the estoppel analysis with the prosecution excerpts attached. Ferrous agrees to drop it.

Week 8–12: the second patent. Now the fight is over "positioned to receive thermal energy," which Kettleworth argues is indefinite because the specification never says how much thermal energy or over what distance. Dr. Raghunathan's declaration explains that radiometric sensing has well-established field-of-view and standoff conventions in the industry, that a POSITA designing an oven controller would know how to position a pyrometer, and that the specification's disclosure of "line of sight to the heated surface" supplies a workable boundary. This is exactly the kind of subsidiary factual testimony that, if credited, receives clear-error deference under Teva.

Week 16: the hearing. The judge asks Marisol the question she has rehearsed: "If line of sight is the test, does a sensor behind a quartz window infringe?" She answers that quartz is transmissive in the relevant infrared band, that Dr. Raghunathan addressed this at paragraph 47, and that the answer is yes — and that this does not broaden the claim because a sensor with no optical path to the workpiece receives no thermal energy and does not infringe.

Week 24: the order. The court construes "positioned to receive thermal energy from the workpiece" as "positioned such that thermal radiation emitted by the workpiece reaches the sensor," rejects the indefiniteness challenge, and makes an express finding — citing Dr. Raghunathan — that a POSITA would have understood standoff and field-of-view conventions. The case settles four months later.

What made the difference. Not the hearing. The intrinsic evidence index in week two, and the willingness to drop a patent that could not be won.

A working calendar

Mistakes that recur

Choosing terms before reading the prosecution history. The single most expensive error in the phase. Positions get locked in publicly and then have to be abandoned.

Proposing a construction that wins infringement and loses validity. Always run the construction against the prior art first.

Treating "plain and ordinary meaning" as a safe answer. It is not, under O2 Micro, when a real scope dispute exists.

Letting the expert declaration be written by counsel in substance. Judges can tell. So can deposing counsel.

Failing to prepare a fallback construction. The judge asks; you have nothing; the court writes its own.

Ignoring the parallel PTAB proceeding. Positions taken at the Board are admissions, and 35 U.S.C. § 315 governs the interaction. Coordinate the two records deliberately.

Waiting until after the order to think about the appeal. By then the record is closed.

After the order: the first two weeks

Re-run the analysis immediately. Take each construction and apply it to the accused products and to the prior art. Do this in writing.

Decide whether the case is over. If a construction is dispositive against you, the fastest path to review is usually a stipulated judgment of non-infringement — the patentee concedes it cannot prove infringement under the construction, judgment enters, and the appeal proceeds on a clean record. Draft the stipulation carefully: concede only what the construction actually requires, and preserve every argument you intend to raise.

Consider certification. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) permits interlocutory appeal of a controlling question of law where there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and immediate appeal may materially advance the litigation. The Federal Circuit grants these sparingly in claim construction, but the motion is inexpensive and occasionally works.

Revise the expert reports. Every infringement and invalidity opinion must now conform to the constructions. An expert who testifies inconsistently with a construction will be excluded.

Revise the damages model. Narrower constructions usually mean smaller royalty bases and sometimes eliminate accused products entirely.

Update the settlement analysis. This is when most patent cases settle, and it is when the parties' assessments are closest to aligned. Have a number ready before the order issues, not after.

Dividing the work

Claim construction is a team exercise, and the most common cause of a bad brief is unclear ownership. A workable division for a mid-sized case:

The intrinsic evidence owner. Usually a mid-level associate. Owns the file wrapper, the term index, and the accuracy of every column-and-line citation in every filing. This person should be able to answer, from memory, where each disputed term appears in the specification. Nobody else on the team needs to hold that in their head, and everybody needs to be able to ask.

The technical liaison. Works with the expert, drafts the technology background, builds the tutorial. Often a patent agent or an associate with a degree in the field. Their job is to make sure the lawyers are not arguing about technology they have subtly misunderstood — a failure mode that is invisible until the hearing.

The strategy owner. Lead counsel. Owns the term grid, the validity stress test, and the decision about what to concede. This person's most important output is the list of terms not fought over.

The writer. Sometimes lead counsel, often not. Claim construction briefs benefit enormously from a single voice, and a brief assembled from four associates' sections reads like one.

The client contact. Someone must explain to the business what is happening and why a hearing about six words justifies its cost. Do this before the invoice, not after. Clients who understand that claim construction usually decides the case tolerate the expense; clients who think it is a procedural formality do not.

Coordinating with a parallel PTAB proceeding

Most significant patent disputes now run on two tracks: the district court case and one or more inter partes reviews. Since 2018 the Board applies the same Phillips framework used in district court, which means the two forums are construing the same words under the same standard on overlapping records — with different judges, different timelines, and different consequences.

Positions are admissions across forums. A patent owner who tells the Board that a claim term is narrow enough to avoid prior art has said something a district court will read. Defense counsel should be running a standing comparison of the patentee's statements in both venues. Patent owners should be doing the same for themselves, before the other side does it for them.

Timing is a strategic variable. If the district court construes first, the Board frequently finds that construction persuasive. If the Board institutes first, its institution decision often contains preliminary constructions that a district judge will read. Stays pending IPR are common, and a party's position on a stay should account for which forum it would rather have construe first.

Estoppel matters. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) estops a petitioner from asserting in district court invalidity grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised in an instituted IPR. That does not bar claim construction arguments, but it does mean that a construction proposed at the Board to support one prior art theory may outlive the theory itself.

Do not let the two teams work separately. If different firms handle the IPR and the district court case, someone must own consistency. This is not optional. It is the single most common source of self-inflicted damage in modern patent litigation.

When the technology is unfamiliar to the court

Some judges hear patent cases constantly. Most do not. Adjust.

In a patent-heavy district — Delaware, the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, the Northern District of California — assume the judge knows the framework cold and wants you to get to the disputed passage. Legal standards sections can be very short. Tutorials should be technical.

In a district that sees a handful of patent cases a year, the tutorial does more work and the brief should be more patient. Explain what a dependent claim is. Explain why the prosecution history matters. Do it without condescension, which is a genuine writing challenge and worth spending time on.

In every district, remember that the judge is deciding a question of law about a technology they did not choose to learn, under time pressure, with two sets of experts telling them opposite things. The brief that makes that job easier tends to win.

Budgeting the phase

Clients ask what claim construction costs, and the honest answer is that it varies by an order of magnitude depending on the number of patents, the number of terms, and whether experts are deposed. But the shape of the budget is predictable, and sharing it early prevents unpleasant conversations later.

Rough allocation for a single-patent case with six disputed terms:

Two line items surprise people. The intrinsic evidence index looks like clerical work and is not — it is the analytical foundation, and cutting it to save money reliably costs more later. The expert is expensive because a good one spends real time reading the patent, the file history, and the prior art before writing a word, and a declaration produced without that reading is worthless.

Ways to control cost that actually work: fight fewer terms; use one expert across claim construction and invalidity rather than two; skip claim construction depositions where the declaration is weak on its face; and resolve the POSITA definition by agreement if you can, since it is often less contested than it appears.

Ways to control cost that do not work: shortening the brief without narrowing the terms, or having a junior lawyer write sections on technology they have not been taught.

Preserving the appeal

Assume from the first filing that a Federal Circuit judge will read this record.

Make your best argument in the district court. Arguments not raised below are generally waived. This includes alternative constructions — a party that offered only construction A cannot argue on appeal that construction B was correct.

Get factual findings on the record if you win them. Under Teva, a district court's resolution of a genuine dispute about extrinsic evidence receives clear-error deference. That protection exists only if the court actually made the finding. If your expert's testimony was credited, a proposed order or a post-hearing submission that identifies the finding is worth the effort.

Keep the record clean about what was disputed. If the court construes a term sua sponte, note the issue. If the court declines to construe a term you contended was dispositive, make the O2 Micro objection so it is preserved.

Watch the stipulation. A stipulated judgment is the standard vehicle for appellate review of a dispositive construction, and a poorly drafted one can waive the very argument it was meant to preserve. State expressly that the stipulation is made solely under the court's construction, that the party does not concede the construction is correct, and that all arguments regarding the construction are preserved.

Consider what a remand looks like. If you win on appeal, the case returns for further proceedings under a new construction. A party that has thought about what that case looks like — new expert reports, new summary judgment, possibly new prior art — negotiates settlement more intelligently while the appeal is pending.

Frequently asked questions

How long does a Markman hearing last? Anywhere from ninety minutes to three days. Most are half a day. Ask the court's clerk what the judge typically allots; the answer determines how you allocate time across terms.

Will there be live testimony? Usually not. Many judges take expert evidence by declaration only. Some permit live testimony where a genuine factual dispute exists, which is precisely the Teva situation. Ask in advance.

Can we submit a video tutorial? Many courts accept them, and they are efficient. Confirm format, length, and whether the other side gets to respond.

What if we discover new prosecution history after briefing? Move promptly. Courts generally allow supplementation for intrinsic evidence, which is public and central, far more readily than for extrinsic evidence.

Should we agree to constructions to reduce the term count? Yes, for Tier 3 terms. No, for anything that touches a dispositive issue. An agreed construction is binding.

Do we have to construe every asserted claim? No. Courts construe disputed terms, not entire claims. Terms appearing in unasserted claims are generally not construed unless they inform an asserted term.

What happens if the court adopts neither construction? Common. The court's construction governs. Re-run the analysis immediately and consider whether reconsideration is warranted — but recognize that reconsideration motions in claim construction rarely succeed absent a genuine oversight.

Related documents

• Claim Construction and Markman Hearings: How Courts Decide What a Patent Actually Covers
• Claim Construction Checklist: A Practical Checklist
• Claim Construction Toolkit: Charts, Briefs, Expert Declarations, and Hearing Materials
• Proving and Attacking Patent Damages: A Practical Guide
• How to Read a Patent: Claims, Specification, and Prosecution History
• Patent Litigation Toolkit: A Roadmap and Research Guide
• Patent Post-Grant Proceedings: IPR, PGR, and Reexamination at the PTAB
• Expert Disclosure and Daubert Challenge Checklist: A Practical Checklist
• Motion Practice Toolkit: Dispositive, Discovery, and In Limine Motions
• Federal Civil Litigation Toolkit: A Roadmap and Resource Guide