Expert witness engagements for Arthur T. Brody

Arthur T. Brody

<div style="text-align: justify"> <div> Dr. Brody is a sought after expert witness for intellectual property and contract matters with testifying experience. He has prepared opinions or supported preparation of opinions with respect to claim construction, infringement, validity, damages, materiality and willful infringement, has prepared responses to questions for Markman hearings, and helped prepare attorneys for Markman presentations. He has written declarations in support of and in opposition to motions for summary judgment. Dr. Brody has been deposed numerous times and has testified at trial. </div> Cases include:   <ul> <li>Verizon CA v. Katz (engaged on behalf of Katz) <ul> <li>Type of Matter – Patent Infringement</li> <li>Law Firm – Fish & Neave, New York, NY</li> <li>Jan 2003 – July 2004 - Served as an expert witness involving telecommunications call center technology. Completed expert witness reports on asserted claim validity. Provided declarations in support of client's summar judgement motions and response. Deposed twice.</li> <li>Disposition – Settled </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Sunrise Telecom vs. Acterna (engaged on behalf of Acterna) <ul> <li>Type of Matter – Patent Infringement</li> <li>Law Firm – ReedSmith, New York, NY</li> <li>May 2005 – August 2005 - Serving as an expert witness on case involving digital subscriber line (DSL) test equipment. Developed client’s position with respect to non-infringement and invalidity. Helped develop claim constructions. Provided declaration in support of client’s non-infringement and invalidity briefs in opposition to a request for preliminary injunctive relief.</li> <li>Disposition – Settled </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Inline Connection Corp. vs. Verizon (engaged on behalf of Inline) <ul> <li>Type of Matter – Patent Infringement</li> <li>Law Firm – HellerEhrman, New York, NY</li> <li>May 2005 – Present - Serving as an expert witness involving telecommunications call center technology</li> <li>Disposition – Several cases settled; other ongoing</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Katz vs. Citibank et al – Multi-District Litigation (engaged on behalf of Katz) <ul> <li>Type of Matter – Patent Infringement</li> <li>Law Firm – Cooley Godward Kronish, Reston, VA; HellerEhrman, San Francisco, CA; Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman, Los Angeles, CA</li> <li>May 2005 – Present - Serving as an expert witness involving telecommunications call center technology.</li> <li>Disposition – ongoing </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>800 ADEPT, Inc. vs. Murex Securities, Ltd., et al  (engaged on behalf of 800 ADEPT)  <ul> <li>Type of Matter – Patent Infringement</li> <li>Law Firm – Allen, Dryer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A., Orlando FL and Maher, Guiley and Maher, P.A. Orlando, FL</li> <li>October 2005 – October 2006 - Served as expert witness involving call routing technology designed to deliver a call to the most appropriate service provider location based on distance between the caller and service provider location or other defined criteria. Prepared expert wtiness and rebuttal reports with respect to the invalidity of Murex's asserted patents, the validity of 800 ADEPT's claims and charges of inequitable conduct against the 800 ADEPT patents' inventor. Wrote declatations in support of 800 ADEPT's motion for summary judgement. Helped prepare demonstrative exhibits for trial. Testified at depostion. Testified at trial both as a direct and rebuttal expert witness.</li> <li>Disposition – Jury verdict and final judgement in favor of 800 ADEPT. All Murex asserted claims found invalid, and all claims of two key patents found to be invladid including one patent that had passed reexam. No inequitable conduct was found. All 800 ADEPT asserted claims found to be valid.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>800 ADEPT, Inc. vs. AT&T Wireless, et al <ul> <li>Type of Matter – Patent Infringement</li> <li>Law Firm – Maher, Guiley and Maher, P.A., Orlando, FL</li> <li>April 2008 – August 2008 - Served as expert witness involving call routing technology designed to deliver a call to the most appropriate service provider location based on distance between the caller and service provider location or other defined criteria such as user-defined geographic area. Deposed on claim construction issues. Have prepared declaration in support of Markman Reply Brief. </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Grape Technology vs. Jingle Networks (engaged on behalf of Jingle) <ul> <li>Type of Matter – Patent Infringement</li> <li>Law Firm – Ropes & Gray, New York, NY</li> <li>August 2008 – Present - Serving as a consulting witness on a case involving directory assistance automation</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Neutral Tandem v. Peerless Network et al  (engaged on behalf of Neutral Tandem) <ul> <li>Type of Matter – Patent Infringement</li> <li>Law Firm – Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL</li> <li>December 2009 - Present - Serving as an eexpert witness on issues related to transit traffic networking between carriers</li> <li>Disposition – Ongoing</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </div> <div style="text-align: justify; margin-left: 40px">  </div>

Home

Curriculum Vitae

Awards & Affiliations