Graphic #72

Trial graphic example

Correspondence pointing directly to the patent infringer’s first contact with the client’s product.


Plaintiff claimed that the presence of carbon in the client’s aluminum capacitors was proof of patent violation. In order to prove that claim, a slice would have to be taken from the capacitor for examination. A by-product of the slicing process is carbon, making the tests inconclusive.


trial graphic showing improper treatment of patient

Despite what were clear warning signs that the client’s condition was deteriorating, hospital doctors and nurses continued to administer a harmful course of treatment.


Throughout the entire development process, the client maintained a high-level of involvement and problems arose after that responsibility was shifted to a third party.


In order to establish credibility without being verbose, we visually referenced the source of the highlighted quote.


Critical dates in this timeline highlighted through the use of color


The point made by this illustration is that these technologies have co-existed for decades and have never been mutually exclusive to a type of treatment. The yellow bars reference the time-frames of that co-existence.


This illustration was part of a Markman hearing describing how mice are genetically bred and classified.


To help prove patent infringement, we combined the client’s patent along-side an exploded view of the infringing product. We placed verbiage from the client’s patent to identify components of the product.


We needed a chart that clearly allowed us to show the interdependent lineage of claims within the patents. These claim relationships would have been difficult to grasp in non-graphic form.