1---2name: deposition-ip-supplement3description: Provides IP-specific deposition examination frameworks for patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret cases. Covers inventor, infringer, licensing, and expert witnesses with question maps for claim construction, prior art, willfulness, Georgia-Pacific factors, likelihood of confusion, and trade secret identification. Use when preparing IP litigation depositions alongside @deposition-preparation and @deposition-expert-witness.4---5
6# IP Litigation Deposition Supplement
7
8IP-specific examination strategies for patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret depositions. Supplements `@deposition-preparation` as the primary framework.
9
10## Quick Start
11
121. Activate `@deposition-preparation` as primary framework
132. Gather: IP registrations, prosecution history, claim construction order, licensing history, expert reports
143. Identify case type below and select relevant witness frameworks
154. For expert depositions, also apply `@deposition-expert-witness`
16
17## Case Types
18
19| Type | Key Issues | Key Witnesses |
20|------|-----------|---------------|
21| **Patent** | Claim construction, infringement (literal/DOE), validity, willfulness, damages | Inventors, R&D/engineering, licensing, technical/damages experts |
22| **Trademark** | Distinctiveness, priority, likelihood of confusion, willfulness, damages | Mark owner, marketing, survey experts, damages expert |
23| **Copyright** | Ownership, originality, access, substantial similarity, fair use, damages | Authors, access witnesses, similarity/damages experts |
24| **Trade Secret** | Existence, reasonable secrecy measures, misappropriation, damages | Secret owners, accused misappropriators, security, damages expert |
25
26## Examination Frameworks
27
28### Patent — Inventor
29
30| Topic | Key Questions |
31|-------|--------------|
32| Conception | First conception date; problem solved; contemporaneous records; who was told |
33| Reduction to practice | Date; testing/prototyping; corroborating documentation |
34| Prior art knowledge | Known prior art; searches conducted; how invention differs from [specific ref] |
35| Claims | Understanding of claim scope; meaning of [disputed term]; relationship to accused product |
36| Prosecution | Involvement; review of office actions; reasons for amendments |
37
38### Patent — Accused Infringer Technical Witness
39
40| Topic | Key Questions |
41|-------|--------------|
42| Product/process | How [accused product] works; key components; development timeline |
43| Design process | Alternatives considered; why this approach; patent awareness; design-around efforts |
44| Claim mapping | Presence of [claim element]; how product performs [claim function] |
45| Non-infringement | Which limitation not met; how product differs from claims |
46| Prior art | Prior products/publications before patent priority date |
47
48### Patent — Licensing/Damages Witness
49
50| Topic | Key Questions |
51|-------|--------------|
52| Licensing history | Existing licenses; royalty rates; negotiation process; comparables |
53| Commercial success | Sales figures; success attributable to patented feature |
54| Market | Competitors; non-infringing alternatives; market share impact |
55| Hypothetical negotiation | Pre-infringement terms; Georgia-Pacific factors; royalty rate and base |
56
57### Patent — Technical Expert
58
59Apply `@deposition-expert-witness` plus:
60
61- **Claim construction**: Basis for construing [disputed term]; prosecution history; specification support
62- **Infringement**: Element-by-element walkthrough; physical exam of accused product; source code review (software)
63- **Validity**: Prior art considered; whether [reference] discloses [element]; PHOSITA motivation to combine
64
65### Patent — Damages Expert
66
67| Topic | Key Questions |
68|-------|--------------|
69| Reasonable royalty | Methodology; Georgia-Pacific factors applied; comparable licenses; royalty base |
70| Lost profits | "But for" world; manufacturing capacity; non-infringing alternatives; market share methodology |
71| Apportionment | Method for isolating patented feature value; consumer demand driver analysis |
72
73### Trademark — Mark Owner
74
75| Topic | Key Questions |
76|-------|--------------|
77| Creation/adoption | When/who created; why chosen; first use in commerce |
78| Distinctiveness | Inherent or acquired secondary meaning; consumer recognition; advertising investment |
79| Confusion | Awareness of defendant's mark; actual confusion incidents; similarity; relatedness of goods |
80| Damages | Lost sales; goodwill damage; costs addressing confusion |
81
82### Trademark — Accused Infringer
83
84| Topic | Key Questions |
85|-------|--------------|
86| Adoption | When/who decided to use mark; prior search; awareness of plaintiff's mark |
87| Intent | Intent to trade on goodwill; legal advice; good/bad faith indicators |
88| Confusion | Known confusion incidents; misdirected customers/orders |
89| Market | How customers find and distinguish products |
90
91### Trade Secret — Owner
92
93| Topic | Key Questions |
94|-------|--------------|
95| Identification | Specific description; what makes it secret; development date and team |
96| Secrecy measures | Physical/electronic security; NDAs; need-to-know restrictions; training |
97| Value | Development investment; competitive advantage; cost of independent development |
98| Misappropriation | How defendant acquired secret; evidence; timing |
99
100### Trade Secret — Accused Misappropriator
101
102| Topic | Key Questions |
103|-------|--------------|
104| Relationship | Nature of relationship; access; agreements signed; understood obligations |
105| Accused information | Awareness of trade secret; how obtained; independent development evidence |
106| Use/disclosure | Use of information; third-party disclosure; relation to accused product |
107| Notice | Knowledge of confidentiality; steps taken regarding obligations |
108
109## Document Focus Areas
110
111| Document | Topics |
112|----------|--------|
113| Prosecution file | Amendments, arguments, prior art, rejections |
114| Invention records | Lab notebooks, conception/RTP dates, corroboration |
115| Licensing agreements | Terms, comparability, negotiation history |
116| Design/technical docs | Development process, alternatives, product operation |
117| Marketing materials | Features emphasized, performance claims |
118| Confidentiality agreements | Scope, obligations, signatories |
119| Source code | Software patents, trade secret cases |
120| Financial records | Damages calculation support |
121
122## Preparation Checklist
123
124- [ ] Review patents/registrations/trade secret identification
125- [ ] Review prosecution history and file wrapper (patent)
126- [ ] Map disputed claim terms and proposed constructions (patent)
127- [ ] Prepare claim element mapping chart (patent)
128- [ ] Identify prior art references and gaps (patent/copyright)
129- [ ] Understand accused product/process technical operation
130- [ ] Review licensing agreements and comparables
131- [ ] Prepare likelihood of confusion analysis (trademark — DuPont)
132- [ ] Review confidentiality agreements and secrecy measures (trade secret)
133- [ ] Understand damages theory and expert methodology
134- [ ] Review expert reports — apply `@deposition-expert-witness`
135
136## Pitfalls
137
138- Pin claim constructions before deposing technical witnesses — questions must track operative constructions
139- Lock inventors to specific conception/RTP dates with corroborating documents
140- Force precise trade secret identification before substantive questions — vague descriptions create indefiniteness defenses
141- Prosecution history estoppel: lock infringers into positions foreclosing DOE arguments
142- Cover all 15 Georgia-Pacific factors with damages witnesses; gaps invite Daubert challenge
143- Willfulness (§ 284): pre-suit patent knowledge required — establish/negate knowledge timeline
144- DTSA vs. state UTSA: confirm governing law; definitions and preemption scope vary
145- Copyright fair use: explore each of four factors independently with relevant witnesses
146
147## References
148
149- 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–287 (Patent Act)
150- 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051–1141 (Lanham Act)
151- 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–810 (Copyright Act)
152- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836–1839 (DTSA)
153- *Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood*, 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)
154- *Markman v. Westview Instruments*, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)
155- *Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics*, 579 U.S. 93 (2016)
CaseMark