Intellectual Property Testimony Work of Brad A. Myers

Brad A. Myers has worked for about 39 law firms as an expert witness on over 66 intellectual property (IP) cases, 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 46 expert reports and declarations, about 20 depositions, and testimony at 2 jury trials, 2 ITC hearings, 1 Markman hearing, and 1 interview with the patent office. I have performed prior art searches, prepared analyses and reports, and given testimony and a technology tutorial 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, visual programming, graphical user interfaces (GUIs), handheld, mobile and smartphone user interfaces, pen interfaces, phone user interfaces, window managers, 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
    Work 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).
    Working for Apple through the law firm of Wilmer Curler 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).
    Working 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.
    Working for defendants through the law firms of Morrison & Foerster LLP and Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
    December, 2010 - present
    My part of this case relates 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.)
    Working 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
    Working 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
    Working 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.
    Working 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 - present
    These cases relate 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
    Working 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 - present
    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.
    Working for Apple, Inc. through the law firms of Sidley Austin LLP and Fenwick & West LLP.
    September, 2013 - September, 2014
    This patent related to a user interface for interacting with files.

Maintained by Brad Myers