By Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D.President & CEO Animators
at Law, Inc
In our company's experience, computer animation
is used by intellectual property litigators more so than any other type
of attorney. The exact reason for this correlation is unclear. However,
it is likely due to the technical background of most IP attorneys and
the complex nature of their cases. Whatever the reason, if you have
not used computer animation in your practice yet, you have probably
considered it. This article should help you determine whether computer
animation is right for you, your firm or your business. If you are already
using it, the experiences of other IP litigators related herein should
prove helpful when you use it again.
Gary Hoffman, of Washington, D.C.'s Dickstein, Shapiro,
Morin and Oshinsky, L.L.P. recently commented on computer animation
that "if a picture is worth a thousand words, a moving picture
is worth ten thousand words. It can truly bring the story to life."
He should know since he has made repeated use of the medium in litigation
both as a teaching tool and for cross examination. In a recent arbitration,
Mr. Hoffman integrated computer animation and video taped tests of a
patented device into a single presentation. By combining the two, he
achieved a more persuasive presentation and enabled the viewer to see
details of the device not readily viewable by the naked eye. He credits
the animation with forcing his opponent's expert, during cross examination,
to back away from some of his opinions stated in direct testimony.
Patrick J. Coyne, of Washington, D.C.'s Collier,
Shannon, Rill and Scott P.L.L.C. believes that he "would never
try an intellectual property case without graphics. Juries are expecting
them. Moreover, you need to do anything you can to simplify the case."
He cautions, however, that "they should be very direct, simple,
and contain only a limited amount of information. They must always be
fair and accurately depict the evidence. Otherwise you damage your credibility
. . . particularly, when the presentation is too slick."
Others have used computer animation to achieve similarly
successful results. In Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. v. Duracraft
Corp., animation was used to show the air flow emanating from a household
fan in a patent/trade dress dispute. Computer animation was used to
educate the jury in a complex patent case involving a magnetic resonance
imaging device (MRI) in Fonar v. General Electric Corp. In Perma Research
& Development Co. v. Singer Co., it was used to show the operation
of an anti-skid device. In Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries,
the operation of machinery allegedly designed with misappropriated trade
secrets was illustrated.
Although the bulk of computer animation presentations
occur in patent litigation, a savvy IP attorney recognizes that opportunity
abounds to use this trial technology in both trademark and copyright
cases. In trademark litigation, one can easily imagine a situation where
marks could be laid over one another (similar to using transparencies)
to illustrate the infringing nature of a mark. Unlike transparencies,
however, limitless combinations of marks could be compared in very little
time. The marks could be shown on real or imagined objects and their
size, color and shape infinitely varied.
In the copyright area, computer interfaces can be
visualized as could any other informational content that could benefit
from being conveyed in an interactive or animated format. That is, animation
need not always depict an object, rather it can be effectively used
to create a presentation that is only meant to convey information in
a visually stimulating manner. Given the complexity of most IP cases,
any device that encourages memory retention by the fact finder while
making issues easier to understand is a valuable tool.
With the costs of using computer animation easily
a tenth of what they were five years ago, the arguments against using
it are few. Cost have fallen because the hardware and software required
to create quality computer animation and interactive presentations are
now priced in the tens rather than the hundreds of thousands. It is
expected that these costs will continue to fall over the next several
years. Given the increasingly competitive nature of the computer animation
industry, the costs of computer animation should similarly fall.
Even in a low cost computer animation, massive amounts
of complex information can be conveyed in an easily understood medium.
The variety of cases that it can be used in is limited only by the imagination
of the litigator. Whether patent, trademark or copyright, most intellectual
property cases lend themselves well to either computer animation or
an interactive presentation. Not only can these devices keep the fact
finder interested in the subject matter, but sometimes they can help
you win your case.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Privacy
| Legal
©1995-2003 Animators at Law, Inc. All Rights Reserved
|
| |
|
Animators at Law
National Headquarters
814 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
800.337.7697
|
