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.4license: Apache-2.05---67# IP Litigation Deposition Supplement89IP-specific examination strategies for patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret depositions. Supplements `@deposition-preparation` as the primary framework.1011## Quick Start12131. Activate `@deposition-preparation` as primary framework142. Gather: IP registrations, prosecution history, claim construction order, licensing history, expert reports153. Identify case type below and select relevant witness frameworks164. For expert depositions, also apply `@deposition-expert-witness`1718## Case Types1920| Type | Key Issues | Key Witnesses |21|------|-----------|---------------|22| **Patent** | Claim construction, infringement (literal/DOE), validity, willfulness, damages | Inventors, R&D/engineering, licensing, technical/damages experts |23| **Trademark** | Distinctiveness, priority, likelihood of confusion, willfulness, damages | Mark owner, marketing, survey experts, damages expert |24| **Copyright** | Ownership, originality, access, substantial similarity, fair use, damages | Authors, access witnesses, similarity/damages experts |25| **Trade Secret** | Existence, reasonable secrecy measures, misappropriation, damages | Secret owners, accused misappropriators, security, damages expert |2627## Examination Frameworks2829### Patent — Inventor3031| Topic | Key Questions |32|-------|--------------|33| Conception | First conception date; problem solved; contemporaneous records; who was told |34| Reduction to practice | Date; testing/prototyping; corroborating documentation |35| Prior art knowledge | Known prior art; searches conducted; how invention differs from [specific ref] |36| Claims | Understanding of claim scope; meaning of [disputed term]; relationship to accused product |37| Prosecution | Involvement; review of office actions; reasons for amendments |3839### Patent — Accused Infringer Technical Witness4041| Topic | Key Questions |42|-------|--------------|43| Product/process | How [accused product] works; key components; development timeline |44| Design process | Alternatives considered; why this approach; patent awareness; design-around efforts |45| Claim mapping | Presence of [claim element]; how product performs [claim function] |46| Non-infringement | Which limitation not met; how product differs from claims |47| Prior art | Prior products/publications before patent priority date |4849### Patent — Licensing/Damages Witness5051| Topic | Key Questions |52|-------|--------------|53| Licensing history | Existing licenses; royalty rates; negotiation process; comparables |54| Commercial success | Sales figures; success attributable to patented feature |55| Market | Competitors; non-infringing alternatives; market share impact |56| Hypothetical negotiation | Pre-infringement terms; Georgia-Pacific factors; royalty rate and base |5758### Patent — Technical Expert5960Apply `@deposition-expert-witness` plus:6162- **Claim construction**: Basis for construing [disputed term]; prosecution history; specification support63- **Infringement**: Element-by-element walkthrough; physical exam of accused product; source code review (software)64- **Validity**: Prior art considered; whether [reference] discloses [element]; PHOSITA motivation to combine6566### Patent — Damages Expert6768| Topic | Key Questions |69|-------|--------------|70| Reasonable royalty | Methodology; Georgia-Pacific factors applied; comparable licenses; royalty base |71| Lost profits | "But for" world; manufacturing capacity; non-infringing alternatives; market share methodology |72| Apportionment | Method for isolating patented feature value; consumer demand driver analysis |7374### Trademark — Mark Owner7576| Topic | Key Questions |77|-------|--------------|78| Creation/adoption | When/who created; why chosen; first use in commerce |79| Distinctiveness | Inherent or acquired secondary meaning; consumer recognition; advertising investment |80| Confusion | Awareness of defendant's mark; actual confusion incidents; similarity; relatedness of goods |81| Damages | Lost sales; goodwill damage; costs addressing confusion |8283### Trademark — Accused Infringer8485| Topic | Key Questions |86|-------|--------------|87| Adoption | When/who decided to use mark; prior search; awareness of plaintiff's mark |88| Intent | Intent to trade on goodwill; legal advice; good/bad faith indicators |89| Confusion | Known confusion incidents; misdirected customers/orders |90| Market | How customers find and distinguish products |9192### Trade Secret — Owner9394| Topic | Key Questions |95|-------|--------------|96| Identification | Specific description; what makes it secret; development date and team |97| Secrecy measures | Physical/electronic security; NDAs; need-to-know restrictions; training |98| Value | Development investment; competitive advantage; cost of independent development |99| Misappropriation | How defendant acquired secret; evidence; timing |100101### Trade Secret — Accused Misappropriator102103| Topic | Key Questions |104|-------|--------------|105| Relationship | Nature of relationship; access; agreements signed; understood obligations |106| Accused information | Awareness of trade secret; how obtained; independent development evidence |107| Use/disclosure | Use of information; third-party disclosure; relation to accused product |108| Notice | Knowledge of confidentiality; steps taken regarding obligations |109110## Document Focus Areas111112| Document | Topics |113|----------|--------|114| Prosecution file | Amendments, arguments, prior art, rejections |115| Invention records | Lab notebooks, conception/RTP dates, corroboration |116| Licensing agreements | Terms, comparability, negotiation history |117| Design/technical docs | Development process, alternatives, product operation |118| Marketing materials | Features emphasized, performance claims |119| Confidentiality agreements | Scope, obligations, signatories |120| Source code | Software patents, trade secret cases |121| Financial records | Damages calculation support |122123## Preparation Checklist124125- [ ] Review patents/registrations/trade secret identification126- [ ] Review prosecution history and file wrapper (patent)127- [ ] Map disputed claim terms and proposed constructions (patent)128- [ ] Prepare claim element mapping chart (patent)129- [ ] Identify prior art references and gaps (patent/copyright)130- [ ] Understand accused product/process technical operation131- [ ] Review licensing agreements and comparables132- [ ] Prepare likelihood of confusion analysis (trademark — DuPont)133- [ ] Review confidentiality agreements and secrecy measures (trade secret)134- [ ] Understand damages theory and expert methodology135- [ ] Review expert reports — apply `@deposition-expert-witness`136137## Pitfalls138139- Pin claim constructions before deposing technical witnesses — questions must track operative constructions140- Lock inventors to specific conception/RTP dates with corroborating documents141- Force precise trade secret identification before substantive questions — vague descriptions create indefiniteness defenses142- Prosecution history estoppel: lock infringers into positions foreclosing DOE arguments143- Cover all 15 Georgia-Pacific factors with damages witnesses; gaps invite Daubert challenge144- Willfulness (§ 284): pre-suit patent knowledge required — establish/negate knowledge timeline145- DTSA vs. state UTSA: confirm governing law; definitions and preemption scope vary146- Copyright fair use: explore each of four factors independently with relevant witnesses147148## References149150- 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–287 (Patent Act)151- 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051–1141 (Lanham Act)152- 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–810 (Copyright Act)153- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836–1839 (DTSA)154- *Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood*, 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)155- *Markman v. Westview Instruments*, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)156- *Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics*, 579 U.S. 93 (2016)
ThomasMoreAI