1. 2009 - Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 06 1 Agenda 4:15 – 5:15 Guest: Harry Bims, Ph.D., Expert Witness 5:30- 6:30 Questions that were not addressed to Bims’ expertise or witnessing. Simulation Projects – update Next Week

2. 2009 - Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 06 2 Your Questions - 1 The ADVERSARY SYSTEM: Experts such as Bims are hired by a PARTY who is represented by COUNSEL. The opposing party also has an expert and counsel. The ADVERSARY SYSTEM presumes that we (society) reach truth when we have two opposing parties with lawyers who can examine, object, introduce evidence, etc. Some of your questions seemed to presume that there was no opponent, and that if BIMS did not inform the Court of information, changes, new technology, new facts, nobody would. This led you to wonder whether he would have to tell the Court about things that HARMED his client’s case. He has an adversary to do that.

3. 2009 - Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 06 3 Your Questions - 2 “Affidavits” and “Declarations” are essentially the same thing: statements by which a person (called an affiant or a declarant) puts information before the court. They are identical except as to - the name of the document on the first page, and - the promise about truthfulness on the last page Affidavits are sworn statements. The oath (swearing) is done before a notary public, who also signs the document. Declarations are unsworn. The declarant signs the document stating that it is true and correct ‘under the penalty of perjury.’ In the old days, only AFFIDAVITS were permitted, and most attorneys and their secretaries were notaries. The notary lobby wasn’t strong though, and the rules changed: In 1976 a federal statute (28 USC 1746) was enacted that permits the use of DECLARATIONS wherever affidavits or oaths are required.

4. 2009 - Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 06 4 Your Questions - 3 Do experts have to “bend the facts”? I hope your experience with your own simulation gives you some insight into the answer!

5. 2009 - Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 06 5 Simulations ___day, 11/30 or 12/1, 7 to 8:20* 7,498,015, Kunze et al., METHOD OF MAKING SILANE COMPOSITIONS Dmitry Emily Guillaume MattB Riti critiqued** by [Aaron Ben Denise MattT __] Wednesday, 12/2, 7 to 8:20* -- 5,556,771, Shen et al., STABILIZED COMPOSITIONS OF REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE AND RNA POLYMERASE FOR NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION BumQ (David) MattP Ryan Tiffany critiqued** by [Dmitry Emily Guillaume MattB] Wednesday, 12/2, 8:40* to 10 -- 7,170,050, Turner et al., APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR OPTICAL ANALYSIS OF MOLECULES Aaron Ben Denise MattT critiqued** by [BumQ MattP Ryan Tiffany] * Refreshments: 8:20 to 8:40 ** Specific critique assignments TBA And please do not ask questions about critiquing unless you know the answers cannot be found in the document How the Course Will Work, which you promised me you read and understood at the start of the quarter.

6. 2009 - Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 06 6 Next Week First Hour: ~15 minutes per team = ~ 3 minutes per person = ~ 1-4 slides per person, covering The CLAIM and the particular word or phrase to which your arguments pertain. THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE CLAIM must be the first slide(s). It should be reformatted as needed. A handout (15 copies) with the whole claim, reformatted, with an indication of the key word/phrase, is strongly advised, too. Information about the claimed invention Information about the prior art, or what the motivation for the invention was, or other helpful background. (This can be before or after you tell about the claimed invention.) Information about the design around or invalidating prior art (which ever you have chosen) Summary of what (else) you will present You can provide other handouts if you like. Divide the work however you like. Do not worry about PO/AI or Lawyer/Expert status for this. Second Hour: More team meetings / discussion with me.