Software patent expert witnesses for infringement, validity, and claim construction. District Courts and PTAB support. Contact Cyberonix today.
Cyberonix helps courts and counsel translate complex software into plain, persuasive analysis for patent litigation and PTAB matters. Our experts bridge code and claims, from source code review and claim construction through depositions, hearings, and trials.
Notable Results
Summary: $78.5M jury verdict (E.D. Tex., Oct. 6, 2025)
- A federal jury awarded $78.5M to Anonymous Media Research in a patent case against Samsung. Cyberonix supported the plaintiff with expert testimony and technical analysis. (Case No. 2:23‑cv‑00439).
Summary: $172M jury verdict (E.D. Tex., Mar. 8, 2021)
- Cyberonix was retained by Wapp Tech to offer infringement and validity opinions in this matter. The jury found the Defendants infringed three of Wapp Tech’s mobile app design patents and awarded over $172 million in damages. (Case No. 4:18-cv-00469).
What We Do
- Source code review and design analysis to map claim limitations to accused products and methods
- Claim construction assistance grounded in intrinsic/extrinsic evidence (supports Markman strategy)
- Infringement and non‑infringement analyses with element‑by‑element charts
- Validity and invalidity analyses, including targeted prior‑art review
- PTAB support (IPR, PGR): declarations, tutorials, and hearing prep
- Non‑infringing alternatives and technical input to value/apportionment
- Expert reports, depositions, Markman, and trial testimony that stand up to challenge
Why Cyberonix for Software Patent Litigation
Patent disputes turn on technical detail: what the accused software actually does, how it is implemented, and whether the evidence supports each claim limitation. Cyberonix provides independent, code-grounded opinions that connect engineering facts to the questions the Court and PTAB must decide.
- Software-only focus: We specialize in software and software‑intensive systems (mobile, web, cloud, databases, AI/ML, and software security).
- Code-to-claim mapping: Element-by-element claim charts with precise citations to source code, binaries, build artifacts, documentation, and runtime behavior.
- Claim construction support: Technical assistance for Markman strategy, including analysis grounded in the intrinsic record and how a POSITA would understand the technology.
- PTAB readiness: Declarations, tutorials, and hearing prep for IPR/PGR proceedings, with analysis that is reproducible and well-documented.
- Courtroom communication: Clear explanations for judges, juries, and counsel, with technical narratives that translate complex software into plain language without sacrificing rigor.
- Protective order discipline: Secure workflows aligned with typical protective orders and source code access restrictions.
Patent Issues We Address
Infringement and Non‑Infringement (Utility and Design Patents)
We analyze whether accused products and methods satisfy each asserted limitation, including how software behavior manifests in code, architecture, APIs, UI flows, and system interactions.
Validity and Invalidity (Prior Art and Technical Teachings)
We support validity/invalidity analysis by connecting prior art references to the asserted claim elements and explaining what they teach from an engineering perspective.
Claim Construction (Markman)
We assist counsel with technical analysis relevant to claim meaning, including how disputed terms map to the specification, prosecution history, and the underlying computer science concepts.
PTAB Proceedings (IPR / PGR)
We support PTAB workstreams with declarations, tutorials, and hearing prep, focusing on clear explanations, demonstratives, and well-supported technical reasoning.
Non‑Infringing Alternatives and Technical Support for Damages Theories
Where needed, we provide technical input on non‑infringing alternatives and apportionment-related technical questions (working alongside damages experts as appropriate).
Evidence We Commonly Analyze
Depending on the technology and the case posture, our analyses may involve:
- Source code repositories and version history (branches, tags, diffs, commits)
- Build artifacts and binaries (including configuration and dependency manifests)
- Architecture, design, and API docs; technical specifications; threat models
- Runtime behavior: logs, telemetry, network traces, and reproducible test runs
- Requirements and dev artifacts (issue trackers, test plans/results, CI/CD logs)
- Product documentation and customer-facing materials relevant to functionality and operation
When to Bring Us In
- Pre‑suit & early case assessment
- Claim construction (Markman)
- Fact & expert discovery
- PTAB proceedings
- Pre‑trial & trial
Engagement Process
- Scope call + conflict check
- Protective order planning and secure evidence intake
- Early case assessment (patents, pleadings/contentions, key technical materials)
- Deep analysis (code, binaries, documents, and behavior testing as appropriate)
- Synthesis (claim charts, technical narrative, demonstratives, and tutorials)
- Reports and declarations (district court and/or PTAB)
- Deposition, hearing, and trial preparation + testimony
- Post-hearing/trial support (rebuttal, follow-on analysis, technical consulting)
Selected Patent Cases
Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
- Retaining party: Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
- Venue: Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
- Case No.: 2:23-CV-439
- Counsel: Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, PLLC
- Nature of suit: Intellectual Property – Patent
- Case outcome: $78.5M jury verdict
Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp v. Seattle Spinco, Inc., et al.
Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp v. Wells Fargo
Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp v. Bank of America
- Retaining party: Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp
- Venue: Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division
- Case No.: 4:18-cv-00469-ALM; 4:18-cv-00501-ALM; 4:18-cv-00519-ALM
- Counsel: Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP
- Nature of suit: Intellectual Property – Patent
- Case outcome: $172M jury verdict
GoTV Streaming LLC v. Netflix
- Retaining party: GoTV Streaming LLC
- Venue: Central District of California
- Case No.: 2-22-CV-07556
- Counsel: Alavi & Anaipakos PPLC
- Nature of suit: Intellectual Property – Patent
- Case outcome: Cyberonix was retained by GoTV Streaming to offer infringement and validity opinions in this matter. The jury found that Netflix infringed GoTV Streaming’s wireless technology patents. (Law360 coverage)
United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A.
- Retaining party: United Services Automobile Association
- Venue: Eastern District of Texas, Marshal Division; USPTO PTAB
- Case No.: 2:20-CV-00319-JRG
- Inter Partes Review No: IPR2021-01248, IPR2021-01163
- Counsel: Irell & Manella LLP
- Nature of suit: Intellectual Property – Patent
- Case outcome: Cyberonix was retained by USAA on counterclaims asserted by PNC Bank in district court, as well as its expert in the IPR proceedings. The jury found that USAA did not infringe PNC Bank’s patents, and the PTAB later invalidated the asserted patents. (Law360 coverage; Bloomberg coverage)
Ford Motor Company v. Versata Software, Inc., F/K/A Trilogy Software, Inc.
- Retaining party: Versata Software, Inc., F/K/A Trilogy Software, Inc.
- Venue: Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
- Case No.: 15-10628-MFL-EAS (consolidated with 15-11624-MFL-EAS)
- Counsel: Winston and Strawn LLP; Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi, and Mensing P.C.
- Nature of suit: Intellectual Property – Patent and Trade Secret
Related Expertise
Our patent work often overlaps with:
- Source Code Review
- Internet and Web
- Mobile Software
- Cloud Computing
- Database and Storage
- Artificial Intelligence
- Software Security
See, also, Trade Secret and Copyright practice areas.
We Are Cyberonix
At Cyberonix, our software expert witnesses offer academically grounded, industry-tested insights in complex software disputes. We support litigation involving patents, trade secrets, copyright, breach of contract, and class actions through source code analysis, technical reporting, and expert testimony.
