Blog
This is the third installment of a four-part series on technology assisted review (TAR). This article compares TAR with exhaustive manual review— review performed solely by human beings with knowledge of the subject matter.
Join DisputeSoft Managing Director Andrew Schulman for a live webcast on April 29 to learn about the important role that source code plays in intellectual property cases.
This is the second installment of a four-part series on technology assisted review (TAR). This article explores two machine learning techniques pertinent to TAR: optical character recognition and natural language processing.
This is the first installment of a four-part series on technology assisted review (TAR), a process that uses machine learning to increase efficiency and decrease the cost of document review in litigation. This article explores differences between supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms.
Read T.J. Wolf’s article on why it is advisable to consult with your expert before agreeing to protective order terms that may limit your expert’s ability to review and analyze code completely and efficiently.
This is the first in a group of articles on source code and how it is handled, examined, and analyzed in litigation. This article covers source code protective orders, which outline restrictions on source code access.
Read about the tools and techniques utilized by experts to measure code quality.
Read about why high code quality matters, and learn about what factors directly affect code quality.
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC unanimously held that the U.S. Copyright Office must issue a copyright registration prior to a copyright claimant filing a lawsuit alleging infringement.
DisputeSoft's Jeff Parmet and Tom Ashley discuss the issues a software expert must address when supporting litigation in which trade secrets are involved.
Read G. Hunter Jones' review of “Electronic Medical Records and Litigation," a reference and practice manual valuable for both attorneys and forensic experts involved in medical malpractice litigation.
This six and final installment of Andrew Schulman's patent litigation series covers the Local Patent Rules that govern infringement and invalidity litigation, as well as the use of claim charts to map limitations to claims.
This fifth installment of Andrew Schulman's six-part patent litigation series examines the concept of patent invalidity and explores several ways in which patent claims can be invalidated.
This fourth installment of Andrew Schulman's six-part patent litigation series walks readers through a limitation-by limitation comparison of a facade-server patent claim with a hypothetical accused product to investigate possible infringement.
This third installment of Andrew Schulman's six-part patent litigation series describes the process of using a patent claim as a checklist to investigate patent infringement.
This second installment of Andrew Schulman's six-part patent litigation series draws on a simple claim for printer toner to illustrate the role of patent claims "as devices for testing patent infringement and invalidity.”
This first installment of Andrew Schulman's six-part patent litigation series explores the idea that a patent is not self-enforcing but rather requires its owner to protect it through litigation.
In March 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Google’s use of 37 Java API packages in the Android smartphone software platform was not fair use.
This second installment in DisputeSoft's Applying the AFC Test series considers the ability of the AFC Test to reveal hidden similarities in the structure, sequence, and organization of two programs.
This third installment in DisputeSoft's Applying the AFC Test series considers the sorts of disputes for which experts may apply the AFC Test.
This first installment in DisputeSoft's Applying the AFC Test series introduces the AFC Test as a methodology for assessing whether non-literal elements of a program were copied for use in another program.
This installment of DisputeSoft's Source Code Repositories series considers why source code repositories are the best evidence an expert can be provided for the purpose of authenticating source code production.
This installment of DisputeSoft's Source Code Repositories series considers why source code repositories are useful for ensuring that an expert reviews the right version of a disputed program.
This installment of DisputeSoft's Source Code Repositories series introduces readers to what source code repositories are and why software developers use them.
This installment of DisputeSoft's Computer Forensics series considers how experts can establish or refute inferences of spoliation by examining Windows Event Logs.
DisputeSoft considers the DMCA's failure to substantially reduce online piracy, as well as the US Copyright Office's response to calls to revise the law.
This installment of DisputeSoft's Computer Forensics series sheds light on how a computer forensics expert can uncover factual information that exposes medical mistakes or cover-ups.
DisputeSoft's Jeff Parmet, Tom Ashley, and Nick Ferrara offer a brief overview of techniques DisputesSoft has used to lay the necessary evidentiary foundation to support misappropriation and infringement claims relating to online piracy.
This installment of DisputeSoft's Computer Forensics series considers how a computer forensics expert can help in the unfortunate event that a dispute arises among potential beneficiaries during the transfer of a loved one's assets.
DisputeSoft examines two cases out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which decided issues related to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and “access without authorization.”
This installment of DisputeSoft's Computer Forensics series considers the role of a computer forensics expert in establishing essential information about a defendant's activities and location at an important date and time.
DisputeSoft considers a California District Court's decision that Google's use of Oracle's Java APIs in the creation of Android was fair use.
This installment of DisputeSoft's Computer Forensics series breaks down the differences and intersections between Computer Forensics and Electronic Discovery.
This installment of DisputeSoft's Computer Forensics series introduces readers to the field of Computer Forensics and the use of forensic evidence in litigation.
DisputeSoft's Allen Klein and Anne Ackerman examine the lessons that sponsors developing and implementing complex systems and seeking to minimize project risk can learn from the failure of the federal healthcare exchange.
This article examines the essential role DisputeSoft's expert analysis and Jeff Parmet's expert testimony played in the InDyne v. Abacus matter.
DisputeSoft's Jeff Parmet and Brendan McParland consider methods for assessing whether a deposit copy is proper in the context of software copyright registrations.