Software Patent Expert Witness
We assist attorneys with litigation matters involving software patents, patent infringement, validity, and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Our software patent expert witnesses hold faculty appointments at U.S. research universities and combine that academic standing with industry experience across the domains in which software-patent litigation arises: web and mobile architectures, machine learning systems, cloud platforms, and embedded software. Source code analysis grounds Cyberonix’s patent work; our consultants read the accused system’s source, design records, and engineering artifacts to support claim-by-claim positions on infringement, validity, and damages apportionment.
Software-patent disputes resolve to a small set of artifacts: source code and design records answer what the system does; prosecution history and specification fix what was claimed; prior-art patents, publications, products, and code releases supply the obviousness and anticipation record. Mapping asserted claim limitations to the accused product, and prior art to challenged claims, is grounded in those artifacts read through the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Our software patent expert witnesses have prepared expert reports and declarations in matters that have proceeded through Markman, summary judgment, jury trial, and PTAB final written decision.
Our experts have previously offered testimony as software patent expert witness, patent infringement expert witness, claim construction expert witness, patent invalidity expert witness, and source code expert witness.
We have experience with the issues that arise in software patent litigation, including:
- Claim construction and Markman analysis
- Infringement and non-infringement analysis
- Validity and invalidity analysis (35 U.S.C. §§102, 103, 112)
- Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) at the PTAB
- Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 (Alice)
- Means-plus-function claims (§112(f))
- Standards-essential patents and FRAND
- Non-infringing alternatives
- Source code review and inspection
- Software architecture and API analysis
- Open-source software in patent disputes
- Hardware-software integration patents
Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis
Claim construction fixes the reading against which the accused product is measured; infringement maps each asserted limitation to source code and runtime behavior.
Claim construction proceeds under the Phillips framework: disputed terms are read from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, with primary weight on intrinsic evidence (claim language, specification, and prosecution history) and extrinsic evidence such as technical dictionaries and treatises consulted where the intrinsic record does not resolve the dispute. Cyberonix supplies the skilled-artisan reading of disputed terms and contributes declarations supporting Markman briefing.
Infringement analysis maps the asserted claim limitations element-by-element to the accused product’s structure and behavior. Claim charts cite source code modules, call paths, runtime traces, configuration files, and design documents that establish each limitation, together with the role of third-party and open-source components. Where literal infringement is absent, the doctrine of equivalents is analyzed under the function-way-result framework, which asks whether the accused implementation performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result.
Source-code evidence also bears on claim construction itself. Where parties dispute whether a term carries its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art or requires a narrower construction tied to the specification, contemporaneous code, technical literature, and product documentation inform how the term was used at the time of the invention and support or rebut proposed constructions. Means-plus-function disputes under §112(f) likewise turn on whether the specification discloses corresponding structure, which for software claims is an algorithm, that the record can confirm or contradict.
Validity and Invalidity Analysis
Validity turns on what the prior art teaches, whether the specification supports the claims, and whether the claimed subject matter is patent-eligible.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102 requires a single prior-art reference to disclose every limitation of the asserted claim, arranged as in the claim. Obviousness under §103 is assessed under the Graham factors (the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and the level of ordinary skill in the field), together with secondary indicia such as commercial success, long-felt unmet need, and copying. Where references are combined, the analysis addresses whether a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine them with reasonable expectation of success. Candidate references are drawn from patents, publications, products, and prior source-code releases.
Section 112 challenges turn on whether the specification supports the asserted claims: written description requires the specification to convey possession of the invention; enablement requires that it teach a skilled artisan to make and use the invention without undue experimentation; definiteness requires that the claims, read in light of the specification, inform a skilled artisan of the scope with reasonable certainty. Means-plus-function construction under §112(f) identifies the corresponding structure in the specification, often dispositive when software-patent specifications disclose only functional language without an algorithm.
Patent eligibility under §101 is governed by the Alice/Mayo two-step framework: step one asks whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea or other patent-ineligible subject matter; step two asks whether the claim elements, individually and as an ordered combination, recite an inventive concept beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional computer implementation.
PTAB Proceedings and Source Code Review
PTAB proceedings and district-court source code review both rest on close reading of the accused implementation, often under protective order and on tight schedules.
Inter partes review and post-grant review proceed on a statutory schedule requiring a final written decision within one year of institution, extendable by up to six months for good cause, and are decided largely on expert declarations. Cyberonix prepares petitioner declarations mapping prior-art teachings to each limitation, and patent-owner declarations addressing deficiencies in the petition’s combinations and reasonable-expectation-of-success showings. Under current PTAB practice, claim construction in AIA trials follows the Phillips standard, aligning IPR/PGR constructions with parallel district-court litigation. Engagement extends through patent-owner responses, petitioner replies, sur-replies, motions to amend, oral hearings, and cross-examination on the technical record.
Source code review under protective order is a recurring component of patent matters. Work proceeds in source-code rooms on standalone review machines with no network access, under the order’s restrictions on printing, note-taking, and disclosure. The workflow identifies modules implementing the accused functionality, traces execution against the claim limitations, and produces annotated excerpts and claim-chart citations. Source code disclosure (SCD) materials produced under the applicable patent local rules’ source-code-disclosure provisions are distinguished from broader produced-source repositories, which require independent navigation of build systems, dependency graphs, and version-control history.
Software architecture and API analysis recovers a structural view of the accused system from source code, design documents, and runtime instrumentation, with components and interactions compared against the claims’ architectural elements. API surfaces and protocol-level behavior are frequently the locus of method-claim infringement in distributed systems. Architectural detail also informs damages, including apportionment to the smallest salable patent-practicing unit and identification of non-infringing alternatives.
Selected Engagements
- Anonymous Media Research, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2025): $78.5M jury verdict
- Wapp Tech Limited Partnership v. Seattle Spinco, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2021): $172M jury verdict
- USAA v. PNC Bank (E.D. Tex.): non-infringement verdict and PTAB invalidation
- GoTV Streaming v. Netflix: infringement found in wireless technology patent
- Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Software: patent and trade secret matter
Meet Our Experts
Software Patent Expert Witness
At Cyberonix, our software patent expert witnesses possess robust academic credentials and extensive industry experience, ensuring they deliver impartial and knowledgeable analyses in software-related patent disputes. We specialize in offering expert witness consulting services tailored to address even the most intricate litigation challenges. Our software patent expert witness consultants have provided expert opinions across diverse litigation matters, including patent disputes, trade secret infringements, copyright issues, breach of contract cases, and class action lawsuits. Our comprehensive range of services encompasses everything from source code analysis to expert report preparation and the delivery of compelling expert testimony during depositions and trials.