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---56# IP Litigation Deposition Supplement78IP-specific examination strategies for patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret depositions. Supplements `@deposition-preparation` as the primary framework.910## Quick Start11121. Activate `@deposition-preparation` as primary framework132. Gather: IP registrations, prosecution history, claim construction order, licensing history, expert reports143. Identify case type below and select relevant witness frameworks154. For expert depositions, also apply `@deposition-expert-witness`1617## Case Types1819| 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 |2526## Examination Frameworks2728### Patent — Inventor2930| 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 |3738### Patent — Accused Infringer Technical Witness3940| 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 |4748### Patent — Licensing/Damages Witness4950| 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 |5657### Patent — Technical Expert5859Apply `@deposition-expert-witness` plus:6061- **Claim construction**: Basis for construing [disputed term]; prosecution history; specification support62- **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 combine6465### Patent — Damages Expert6667| 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 |7273### Trademark — Mark Owner7475| 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 |8182### Trademark — Accused Infringer8384| 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 |9091### Trade Secret — Owner9293| 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 |99100### Trade Secret — Accused Misappropriator101102| 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 |108109## Document Focus Areas110111| 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 |121122## Preparation Checklist123124- [ ] Review patents/registrations/trade secret identification125- [ ] 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 operation130- [ ] Review licensing agreements and comparables131- [ ] Prepare likelihood of confusion analysis (trademark — DuPont)132- [ ] Review confidentiality agreements and secrecy measures (trade secret)133- [ ] Understand damages theory and expert methodology134- [ ] Review expert reports — apply `@deposition-expert-witness`135136## Pitfalls137138- Pin claim constructions before deposing technical witnesses — questions must track operative constructions139- Lock inventors to specific conception/RTP dates with corroborating documents140- Force precise trade secret identification before substantive questions — vague descriptions create indefiniteness defenses141- Prosecution history estoppel: lock infringers into positions foreclosing DOE arguments142- Cover all 15 Georgia-Pacific factors with damages witnesses; gaps invite Daubert challenge143- Willfulness (§ 284): pre-suit patent knowledge required — establish/negate knowledge timeline144- DTSA vs. state UTSA: confirm governing law; definitions and preemption scope vary145- Copyright fair use: explore each of four factors independently with relevant witnesses146147## References148149- 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)
lev-os