Intellectual Property Testimony Work of Brad A. Myers

Brad A. Myers has been an expert witness on over 80 intellectual property (IP) cases for over 52 law firms, all related to patents. The complete list of law firms is in my resume at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bam/resume.html.

This includes about 76 expert reports and declarations, about 34 depositions, and testimony at 2 jury trials, 2 ITC hearings, 1 Markman hearing, 2 technology tutorials, and 1 interview with the patent office. I have performed prior art searches, prepared analyses and reports, and given testimony and technology tutorials on claim construction, infringement, prior art, and validity.

I personally have 3 issued patents (5,581,677, 7,729,542, and 7,735,066). My patents and all of my other publications are also listed in my resume.

My focus is on expert witness work on user interface patents, including user interfaces, human-computer interaction (HCI), web user interfaces, interaction techniques, graphical user interfaces (GUIs), handheld, mobile, palm-size and smartphone user interfaces, consumer electronics user interfaces, pen interfaces, phone user interfaces, window managers, visual programming, and programming environments.

All Public Reports, Declarations, Depositions, Hearings, and Trials Expert Witness Work:

  1. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co. in the US District Court for the Northern District Of California
    Worked for Apple through the law firm of Brown and Bain.
    Approximately March of 1989. In that case, I evaluated the window managers of the time from Microsoft and Apple, and gave an opinion on which features were similar in the two designs.
  2. Wang Laboratories, Inc. vs. America Online Inc., and Netscape Communications Corp. in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, Civil Action No. 97-1628-A.
    Worked for AOL through the law firm of Nixon and Vanderhye.
    February, 1998.This case was about a VideoText patent and whether it applied to the World-Wide-Web. I found significant prior art relevant to the case, and wrote a report evaluating to what extent the claims as interpreted by Wang would apply to various aspects of the Microsoft Windows Operating System and Internet Explorer.
  3. National Instruments Corporation vs. PPT Vision, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division, Civil Action No. A-99-CA-187 JN.
    Worked for PPT through the law firm of Lindquist & Vennum.
    November, 1999 - May, 2000.National Instrument's patents were about a Visual Programming language, and I helped PPT Vision find prior art, and also show that their visual language was not the same kind as described in the patent, so did not infringe.
  4. Certain Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof, GemStar-TV Guide International Inc. and StarSight Telecast Inc. vs. Pioneer, Scientific Atlanta, EchoStar and SCI Systems,
    in the United States International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. Before the Honorable Paul J. Luckern
    Worked for EchoStar through the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, LLP.
    August - December, 2001.GemStar's patents related to a presentation of television schedules on a screen. One patent I focused on related to the user interface for how the user could navigate through a schedule.
  5. Declaration to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in re: Application of: Samuel Sergio Tenenbaum, Serial No: 09/922,232, filed: August 3, 2001, "Computerized Advertising Method and System".
  6. Xybernaut Corporation v. Viewsonic Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria Division, Civil Action No. 03-1549-A.
    Worked for Viewsonic through the law firm of Cooley Godward LLP.
    March - June, 2004The case related to handheld devices used as remote monitors for desktop PCs.
  7. GTECH Corporation, v. Scientific Games International, Inc., Scientific Games Holdings Corporation, Scientific Games Finance Corporation, and Scientific Games Corporation, In The United States District Court For The District Of Delaware, Civil Action No. 04-138-JJF.
    Worked for SGI through the law firm of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell.
    May, 2005 - March, 2006This case related to how images are presented on the screens of lottery ticket vending machines.
  8. American Video Graphics, L.P., v. Microsoft Corporation, In The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas, Tyler Division.
    Worked for Microsoft through the law firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP.
    January, 2005 - September, 2005My report discusses early windowing systems.
  9. Certain Digital Image Storage and Retrieval Devices, Ampex Corporation vs. Eastman Kodak Company and Altek Corporation. in the United States International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. Before the Honorable Robert L. Barton, Jr.;
    AND
  10. Ampex Corporation v. Eastman Kodak Company, Altek Corporation, and Chinon Industries, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District Of Delaware, Civil Action No. 04-1373(KAJ).
    Worked for Kodak through the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.
    November, 2004 - 2006These cases related to displaying small images (now called "thumbnails") on the digital cameras.
  11. Wireless Agents, L.L.C. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-289-D.
    Worked for Sony Ericsson through the law firm of Thompson & Knight L.L.P.
    May, 2005 - 2007This case related to a screen rotating to cover the keys of mobile phones.
  12. Wireless Agents v. AMOI Electronics et al. including Kyocera Wireless Corp. and Amp'd Mobile, Inc. et. al., in The United States District Court for The Western District Of Texas, Austin Division, Civil Action No. A-06-CA-492-SS.
    Worked for Kyocera and Amp'd through the law firm of McKool Smith, P.C.
    October, 2006 - 2007This case related to a screen sliding to cover the keys of mobile phones.
  13. CCC Information Services Inc. v. Mitchell International, Inc., in the United States District Court For The Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 03 C 2695.
    Worked for Mitchell through the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
    May, 2004 - 2007This case related to the user interface for software for automobile insurance evaluations.
  14. Microsoft Corporation v. Lucent Technologies Inc., Alcatel-Lucent, and the Multimedia Patent Trust. United States District Court, Southern District Of California, Case No. 06-CV-0684 H (CAB).
    Worked for Microsoft through Fish & Richardson P.C.
    April, 2007 - May, 2008My part of this case related to having multiple cover sheets for facsimiles.
  15. Asian Communications Pty Ltd., and Tegic Communications, Inc., v. Zi Corporation, and Zi Corporation of America, Inc. in the United States District Court, Northern District, San Francisco Division, Case No. 00-0989 MMC
    Worked for Zi Corporation through the law firm of Mayer Brown LLP.
    September, 2008 - February, 2009This case related to text entry using keypads.
  16. Girafa.com, Inc., v. Amazon Web Services LLC, Amazon.COM, Inc., Alexa Internet, Inc., IAc Search & Media, Inc., Snap Technologies, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., Smartdevil Inc., Exalead, Inc., and Exalead S.A. in the United States District Court For The District Of Delaware, Case No. C.A. No. 07-787 with Judge Sue L. Robinson.
    Worked for Girafa through the law firm of Sughrue Mion, PLLC.
    Jan, 2008 - October, 2009This case related to thumbnail images on web pages.
  17. Alexa Internet, Inc. v. Girafa.com, Inc. in the United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:08-cv-121.
    AND
  18. Girafa.com, Inc. v. Alexa Internet, Inc.; Niall O'Driscoll, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 08-2745
    Worked for Girafa through the law firm of Sughrue Mion, PLLC.
    Aug, 2008 - October, 2009These cases related to thumbnail images on web pages.
  19. Motorola, Inc. v. VTech Communications, Inc., and VTech Telecommunications Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, Case no. 5:07-cv-00171-DF-CMC
    Worked for Motorola through the law firm of Ropes & Gray LLP.
    November, 2007 - January, 2010My part of this case related to mobile device user interfaces.
  20. Certain Wireless Communications System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs, in the United States International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. before the Honorable E. James Gildea. ITC Matter Inv. No. 337-TA-706. (Motorola v. RIM).
    Worked for Motorola through the law firm of Ropes & Gray LLP.
    Jan, 2010 - June, 2010.My part of this case related to entering information on mobile devices.
  21. Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, And Computers, in the United States International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. Before E. James Gildea, Administrative Law Judge, Inv. No. 337-TA-701. (Nokia v. Apple).
    Worked for Apple through the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.
    February, 2010 - December, 2010
    My part of this case related to phone user interfaces.
  22. Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes, in the United States International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. Before E. James Gildea, Administrative Law Judge, Inv. No. 337-TA-712. (Verizon vs. CableVision).
    Worked for Verizon through the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.
    March, 2010 - January, 2011
    My part of this case related to user interfaces for navigation of television programs and channels.
  23. MONKEYmedia, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00319 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division;
    and
    MONKEYmedia, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment; Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, LLC; Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Home Entertainment; Sony Electronics, Inc.; Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC; Warner Home Video, Inc.; and Universal Studios Inc., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-00533 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
    Worked for defendants through the law firms of Morrison & Foerster LLP and Kenyon & Kenyon LLP.
    December, 2010 - March, 2011
    My part of this case related to user interfaces for scrolling.
  24. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-00248-DAJ-FBS (E.D. Va.)
    Worked for Verizon through the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.
    December, 2010 - July, 2011
    My part of this case related to user interfaces for navigation of television programs and channels.
  25. Declaration to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in re: Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,367,078: Michael Lasky
    Worked for Verizon through the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP.
  26. CEATS v. Continental, et al., USDC-EDTX (Tyler) - Case No. 6:10-CV-120-LED-JDL
    Worked for AirTran Airways, Inc., Alaska Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Horizon Air Industries, Inc., JetBlue Airways Corporation, United Airlines, Inc., U.S. Airways, Inc., and Virgin America, Inc. through the law firms of Thompson & Knight LLP, Klemchuk Kubasta LLP, and Fish & Richardson P.C.
    September, 2011 - March, 2012
    My part of this case related to mouse-over user interfaces on seat maps.
  27. Wireless Ink Corp. v. Facebook, Inc. and Google Inc., Civil Action No. 10-cv-1841 (PKC), and
    Wireless Ink Corp.v. Facebook Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 11-cv-1751 (PKC), in United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
    Worked for Facebook, Google, YouTube, and MySpace through the law firms of Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C., White & Case LLP, and Cooley LLP.
    December, 2011 - August, 2014
    These cases related to web pages for mobile devices.
  28. Declaration under 35 U.S.C § 132 to the United States Patent and Trademark Office In the Reexamination of USP 7,469,381 to Ording, Control No.: 90/012,304.
    Worked for Apple through the law firms of Goldberg, Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, and Morrison & Foerster LLP.
    September, 2012 - June, 2013
    This patent relates to scrolling on a touch-screen.
  29. Declarations under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board In re Covered Business Method Review of: U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382 and U.S. Patent No. 8,083,137
    Worked for PNC Financial Services Group and Bank of America, N.A. through the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.
    September, 2013 - April, 2015
    These patents relate to user interfaces for presenting information.
  30. Declaration in support of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,921,139, before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Apple Inc., Petitioner v. Whitserve, LLC, Patent Owner.
    Worked for Apple, Inc. through the law firms of Sidley Austin LLP and Fenwick & West LLP.
    September, 2013 - September, 2014
    This patent relates to a user interface for interacting with files.
  31. Declaration in support of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,312,091, before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Facebook, Inc., Petitioner v. Mobile-Plan-It, LLC, Patent Owner; Inter Partes Review Nos. 2015-00691 and 2015-00692.
    Worked for Facebook, Inc. through the law firm of Cooley LLP.
    April, 2014 - July, 2015
    This patent relates to a user interface for organizing meetings.
  32. OpenTV, Inc., and Nagravision, SA v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01622-HSG in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.
    Worked for Apple, Inc. through the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
    May, 2014 - Sept., 2016
    This case related to tools for implementing graphical user interfaces.
  33. Declaration in support of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 5,566,287, before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Apple, Inc., Petitioner v. OpenTV, Inc, Patent Owner; Case IPR2015-00980.
    Working for Apple, Inc. through the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
    May, 2014 - March, 2016
    This case relates to tools for implementing graphical user interfaces.
  34. Mobile-Plan-It, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01709 RS in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
    Worked for Facebook, Inc. through the law firm of Cooley LLP.
    April, 2014 - July, 2015
    This case related to managing meetings.
  35. Declarations in support of Inter Partes Reviews of United States Patents No. 8,434,020 and 8,713,476, before the United States Patent and Trademark Office; Apple Inc., Petitioner v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Patent Owner.
    Working for Apple, Inc. through the law firm of Ropes & Gray LLP.
    August, 2015 - December, 2016
    These cases relate to menu user interfaces.
  36. Data Engine Technologies LLC v. International Business Machines Corp. Civil Action Nos. 6:13-cv-00859-RWS-JDL in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
    Worked for IBM through the law firm of Desmarais LLP.
    March, 2015 - June, 2016
    This case related to user interfaces for spreadsheets and property sheets.
  37. Versata Software, Inc. F/K/A Trilogy Software, Inc.; and Versata Development Group, Inc., F/K/A Trilogy Development Group, Inc., v. Zoho Corporation D/B/A ManageEngine. Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00371-SS in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
    Worked for Zoho through the law firms of Fenwick & West LLP, Tyz Marton Schumann LLP, and Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang LLP.
    June, 2015 - December, 2016
    This case related to user interfaces on mobile devices.
  38. Dropbox, Inc., v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent no. 6,671,757, United States Patent and Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
    Worked for Dropbox, Inc. through the law firm of Williams & Connolly.
    October, 2016
    This matter related to whether a publication was publically available.
  39. Declarations in support of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent no. 7,752,564, United States Patent and Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Sony Corporation, Petitioner v. ARRIS Enterprises LLC, Patent Owner. Case No. IPR2017-01963.
    Worked for Sony Corporation through the law firm of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP.
    July, 2017 - December, 2017
    This matter related to user interface for electronic program guides (EPGs) for television programs.
  40. Declarations in support of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent nos. 8,665,239 and 9,203,940, United States Patent and Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Apple Inc., Petitioner v. Qualcomm Inc., Patent Owner. Case Nos. IPR2018-01245, IPR2018-01270 and IPR2018-01275.
    Working for Apple Inc. through the law firm of Fish & Richardson P.C.
    February, 2018 - October, 2019
    These matters relate to gestures, and on mobile devices to a power button.
  41. Immersion Corporation v. Motorola Mobility LLC and Motorola Mobility Holdings LLC, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Case No. 1:17-cv-01081-RGA.
    Working for Motorola through the law firm of DLA Piper LLP.
    June, 2018 - August, 2019
    This case relates to tactile feedback on Android phones.
  42. Uniloc USA, Inc., et al., v. Apple Inc., in the United States District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Case No. 3:18-cv-00365-WHA.
    Working for Apple through the law firm of Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP.
    December, 2017- September, 2018
    This case related to using a palm-size device as a remote control.
  43. Maxell, Ltd., v. Huawei Device USA Inc. and Huawei Device Co., LTD., Case No. 5:18-cv-0033-RWS; and Maxell, Ltd., v. ZTE Corporation and ZTE USA Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0034-RWS, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division.
    Worked for Huawei through the law firm of Fish & Richardson P.C., and for ZTE through the law firm of K&L Gates LLP.
    November, 2018 - February, 2019
    This case related to using a touch panel with different parts of a finger.
  44. Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Dell Inc. (Lead Consolidated Case), Civil Action No. 6:18–cv–0030, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District Of Texas, Tyler Division.
    Working for Dell through the law firm of Baker Botts L.L.P.
    September, 2018 - June, 2020.
    This case relates to management of multiple windows on a touchscreen.
Maintained by Brad A. Myers