Questions? Feedback? powered by Olark live chat software

Invalidity contentions - what e-discovery can teach us

Software has transformed the document review process, leveraging technology to allow lawyers to be more productive during the review process.  Why haven't similar advancements been applied to aspects of patent litigation, beyond document review?  Consider part of an e-discovery blog post (reproduced below), which points out shortcomings of the document review process.  The same idea applies to invalidity contentions - cut & paste, editing charts, changing citations - this is drudgery.

"In short, by using predictive coding, the authors say that associates no longer have to suffer the drudgery of endless document review. Instead, they can spend time to understand facts and tell a good story, which is, after all, what litigators should do."

via Strategic Legal Technology :: The State of BigLaw: What the AmLaw 100 2011 and Two Other Reports Today Tell Us.

The discovery process has evolved so that technology now takes a first pass at reviewing large document compilations before attorney review begins. Instead of toiling away and churning documents, the attorneys spend more time analyzing the case and formulating thoughts that advance case strategy.

PatDek is a first step in the right direction for patent contention workflow.  The invalidity contention process should be about reviewing the art, understanding the art, and configuring the references to tell a story about the technology, not just presenting it.  It's the art, and the story the prior art teaches, that matters.