How Lumenci proved infringement from a source code production that was barely readable
Building an infringement case usually means working with what discovery produced.
Here, the production was pre-printed, out of context, and partly illegible, so Lumenci built the case from what it didn't contain.
%20(convert.io).webp "patent portfolio (50) (convert.io)")
Case at a Glance
Domain
Service
Client
Outcome
An unrebutted expert report, and a favorable settlement inside two weeks
Most cases are built from what discovery produced. This one was built from what it didn't
What most teams do.
What Lumenci did instead.
Designed the deposition questions to produce the missing evidence, then built the expert report on the testimony they generated.
Why it mattered.
How It Was Done
The asserted technology was thermal foldback, and no produced document referred to it by name. Everything had to be established from function rather than from labels.
%20(convert.io).webp?width=960&height=678&name=patent%20portfolio%20(51)%20(convert.io).webp "patent portfolio (51) (convert.io)")
All available source code and technical materials were reviewed to pull out whatever functional insight survived the production quality.
With the code fragmentary, the infringement theory was grounded in how the lighting fixtures physically behave, which is where the claimed functionality actually lives in a hardware product
An in-person session aligned the technical read with the legal strategy and surfaced materials that had not previously been connected to the asserted claims.
Questions were designed around the specific evidentiary gaps, so testimony would establish what the production had failed to.
Deposition testimony and technical findings were combined into a single expert report, with the testimony carrying the points the documents could not.
What Changed for the Client
Where they stood.
A cohesive infringement case resting on sworn testimony and hardware behaviour, rather than on a production that could not carry it
What it forced.
The opposing party filed no rebuttal to the expert report
How it ended.
A favorable settlement less than two weeks after expert submission
Source Code Review for Patent Litigation
100k+ Patents Analyzed
200+ Source Code Reviews
250+ Litigations Supported
What This Would Look Like for Your Matter
A scoping conversation covers the accused products, what the production actually contains, which depositions are still ahead of you, and your expert report deadline. You get a view of what the evidence can be made to support before committing to a full engagement.
Frequently Asked Questions
What can be done when the source code production is unusable?
More than most teams assume. A bad production limits what the documents prove, not what the case can establish. Depositions, hardware behaviour, and functional analysis can all carry points the produced code cannot, provided the gaps are identified early enough to shape the questions.
Can infringement be proven for hardware products with minimal source code?
Yes. In hardware, the claimed functionality is usually implemented in the physical behaviour of the product rather than in code. The analysis shifts from reading the implementation to establishing what the device does and why.
Can deposition questions be designed to fill evidentiary gaps?
They can, and it is one of the most underused tools available to counsel. It requires the technical team to know precisely which gap each question is closing, which means the deposition strategy has to be built after the production has been assessed, not before.
What does it mean when an expert report goes unrebutted?
The opposing party chose not to file a competing expert opinion. It is a strong signal about how the technical position was viewed, and it removes the battle of experts that usually consumes the run-up to trial.
Does Lumenci work with the testifying expert, or replace them?
We work alongside the testifying expert, building and structuring the technical record and preparing them for deposition. Where a matter needs testimony from us directly, Lumenci also provides expert witness testimony.
Can Lumenci come in when discovery has already gone badly?
Yes, and it is a common point of entry. A production that has already disappointed is usually the reason counsel calls. What matters is how much deposition and expert work remains, since that is where the gaps get closed.