How Lumenci proved the defendant was still infringing, three years after the first verdicts
The case file described a 2020 product. The defendant was selling a 2023 one. Lumenci went back into the source code and checked what the defendant was actually shipping by then.
Case at a Glance
Domain
Service
code review
Client
Outcome
A multimillion-dollar verdict, won twice, with the jury finding the infringement willful.
Winning once means proving the infringement happened. Winning twice means proving it never stopped.
What most teams do.
What Lumenci did instead.
Reopened the source code and analysed the releases the defendant was shipping at the time of the retrial, not the versions from the original record.
Why it mattered.
How It Was Done
Lumenci worked alongside trial counsel and the testifying expert across both trials, so the technical record carried forward rather than being rebuilt from scratch.
Product testing and technical investigation established the infringement position before the complaint was filed.
Millions of documents and over 200 GB of source code were reviewed across multiple iterations to locate the evidence the asserted claims turned on.
With the first ruling challenged, the accused products were analysed again in their then-current versions to establish that the infringing functionality was still present.
Findings were structured so each conclusion traced to a specific location in the code and could be reproduced by an opposing expert.
Technical support through expert and 30(b)(6) depositions kept the testimony consistent with what the code actually showed.
Jury trial decks translated the technical findings into a form a lay jury could follow without softening the precision the record required.
What Changed for the Client
Where they stood.
Evidence that the infringing functionality was present in the releases shipping at the time of the retrial, not only in versions from years earlier
What Lumenci Enabled.
The defendant had to defend the product it was selling, rather than relitigate a record it had already moved past
How it ended.
A multimillion-dollar verdict, the client's second consecutive jury win, with the jury finding the infringement willful
Source Code Review for Patent Litigation
100k+ Patents Analyzed
200+ Source Code Reviews
250+ Litigations Supported
Client testimonial
"Their excellent source code review proved that no amount of complexity in a code is difficult for them to crack. Lumenci's support was critical to achieving this goal, particularly the continuous support throughout trial preparation."
- Trial Counsel
What This Would Look Like for Your Matter
A scoping conversation covers the accused products, what has been produced, whether the current releases have been examined, and your trial or expert report dates. You get a view of what the code can be made to show before committing to a full review.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens to the technical evidence when a verdict is challenged and retried?
The original analysis still stands, but it describes the product as it was. If the accused product has shipped new releases since, those are a separate question, and one the defendant has usually not been asked about.
Can source code review cover versions released after the case was filed?
It can, where those versions are produced. Continued presence of the infringing functionality bears on ongoing damages and on whether the conduct continued after the defendant was on notice.
Why does willfulness matter in a patent case?
A finding of willful infringement opens the door to enhanced damages and can affect fee-shifting. It generally turns on what the defendant knew and what it did afterwards, which is why conduct following a first verdict is material.
How is a production of hundreds of gigabytes reviewed on a trial schedule?
Through structured review protocols and a team sized to the production, working inside the environment the protective order specifies. The constraint is usually protective order access hours rather than reviewer capacity.
What technical support does a team provide at trial itself?
Expert report structuring, preparation for expert and 30(b)(6) depositions, and trial decks that make the findings followable by a jury without softening what the record shows.
Does Lumenci work with the testifying expert, or replace them?
We work alongside the testifying expert. Our team builds and structures the technical record, prepares the expert for deposition, and makes sure the findings survive cross-examination. Where a matter needs testimony from us directly, Lumenci also provides expert witness testimony.