Patent, Trade Secret and Software Copyright Testimony
Source Code Experts Who Cite the File, Function and Line
Patent, trade secret and software disputes hinge on what the code does, when it was written and whether it matches the code on the other side, and the expert has to explain a function to a jury. Working inside the protective order, our expert identifies the version and build that actually shipped and anchors every opinion to a file path, function and line range a rebuttal expert can find. The practice works in federal district court and ITC Section 337 proceedings and most often serves Fortune 1000 and AmLaw 100 clients.
Discuss your case
Scope the Expert Assignment Before the Schedule Closes
Tell us the software in dispute, the technical question and the next report or hearing deadline. We will tell you what the review needs, who should do it and whether the schedule allows the opinion you need.
Discuss your expert requirements
The record
The relevant versions, repository and build records and the review access the protective order allows, identified before the review room opens.
The assignment
The analysis, report, rebuttal or testimony the matter needs, scoped so each opinion can be completed and defended within the procedural schedule.
Relevant experience
The proposed expert's experience, availability and conflicts, reviewed during scoping so counsel can disclose with confidence.
Why Patent and Trade Secret Counsel Retain GDF
Joseph Caruso founded Global Digital Forensics in 1992. His technology career began in 1980 and spans software development, mainframe databases, real time transaction systems, mobile operating systems and cellular networks, which is the background counsel drew on when they retained him as a consulting expert on mobile technology in Motorola Mobility v. Microsoft and Apple v. Samsung. In an American Express consumer class action he analyzed airline reservation architecture, real time transactions, mainframe databases, source code and system configuration, and in Bank One shareholder litigation he analyzed credit card transaction and deposit systems. He studied mathematics and engineering physics at Stevens Institute of Technology and holds the CISSP.
That record matters because a source code opinion is only as strong as the engineer behind it. Our expert practice spans federal district court, multidistrict litigation, arbitration and ITC Section 337 proceedings, and the practice most often serves Fortune 1000 and AmLaw 100 clients. The analysis compares code, dependency use, version histories and implementation behavior against the claim constructions in the case, and every similarity is explained by what the code does rather than by a score.
Commit author fields and timestamps are recorded metadata that an account can edit or supply. We corroborate provenance with repository audit records, signed artifacts, build and deployment records and independently retained copies, and the report deals with missing history and shared accounts head on.
Technical background on the records we rely on is published in the Git commit metadata and signatures documentation and the GitHub enterprise audit events reference.
If the repository is already under a protective order, tell us the review room terms and we will say how the examination would proceed within them.
The engagement
Every Opinion Anchored in the Review Room Record
Federal source code reviews run under protective orders that set court specific limits on the review machine, notes, printouts and retention, and the Eastern District of Texas, the Northern District of California, the District of Delaware and the International Trade Commission each do it differently. We follow the order entered in your matter and anchor every opinion to a specific file path, function and line range, so a rebuttal expert can find exactly what we found and a judge can see that we found it.
The substantive work covers patent infringement and non infringement analysis, claim construction declarations for Markman hearings, invalidity analysis, trade secret misappropriation analysis under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and state law, copyright claims over software structure and sequence, and open source license compliance across the GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL and Apache families. Findings rest on specific source lines, specific commit history and specific build artifacts rather than on impressions of the codebase.
We work for plaintiffs and defendants. Work product includes source grounded claim charts, comparisons of asserted trade secrets to accused code, non infringement analysis using counsel's claim constructions, independent development timelines from version control and critical review of the opposing expert's charts.
Scope
Patent infringement and non infringement source review
Element by element analysis of accused source code against the asserted claims, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, with claim charts anchored to specific files, functions and line ranges and reconciled to build artifacts where the record allows.
Markman claim construction on software terms
Written declarations on the person of ordinary skill in the art, the technical background of the accused technology and the meaning of disputed claim terms in light of the specification, the file history and the state of the art at the priority date.
Trade secret misappropriation analysis under the DTSA
Independent review of the alleged trade secret code against the accused product's source, focused on what actually appears in both and what does not, with timeline analysis from version control on both sides where the record supports it.
Software copyright and structure, sequence and organization
Analysis of software copyright claims, abstraction, filtration and comparison work where the record supports it, and specific comparisons of protected expression against the allegedly copied code.
Open source license compliance
Written analysis of GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL, EPL, Apache and MIT compliance for accused distributions, with software bill of materials comparison, license header review and derivative work analysis anchored to specific source and build artifacts.
ITC Section 337 proceedings
Source code review for ITC 337 proceedings, including infringement, the technical prong of domestic industry and design around analysis on the Commission's compressed schedule, coordinated with any parallel district court matter.
Expert Rebuttal, Cross Examination, and Daubert Motion Support
Rebuttal declarations on opposing source code expert reports, cross examination question sets for engineers and opposing experts, and declarations on source code methodology for Daubert motions.
Which of those assignments is yours? Call (800) 868-8189 and we will discuss the claim elements or the trade secret definitions the review has to address.
Methodology
From Retention to Testimony Through the Review Room
-
Retention, conflicts and protective order intake
We review the retention letter, run a source code review conflict check and take in the protective order that governs the matter. The engagement proceeds only where no bar under the order applies, and the deliverables are scoped to the procedural schedule so the scope matches what can be defended by the deadline.
-
Examination in the review room
The review takes place on the producing party's standalone review machine, with marked printouts, secure custody of printouts and workpapers written inside the review room. Every material finding is traced to a specific file path, function and line range, which is what makes the opinion checkable rather than merely confident.
-
Report drafting
The written report ties every opinion to specific source evidence, with claim charts, timelines and build artifact reconciliation where the record supports it. Each opinion is stated so a rebuttal examiner can locate the underlying source, because an opinion that cannot be located cannot be defended.
-
Deposition, Evidentiary Hearing, and Trial Testimony
We prepare with counsel and testify at deposition, hearing or trial, then handle printouts and workpapers after the matter in accordance with the protective order.
To see how the examination record supports each later step, read the digital forensics process guide before retention is discussed.
Evidence commonly examined
Evidence We Examine in a Source Code Matter
Produced source code on the review machine under the protective order is the heart of the examination, read alongside version control history and commit metadata where produced, build scripts, dependency manifests and software bills of materials, and the design documentation, engineering notes and issue tracker exports that explain why the code looks the way it does. The asserted patents, file histories, prior art references and the governing claim constructions frame the comparison, and the opposing expert's reports, workpapers and claim charts are read against the same source. The local rules, the protective order and any source code review protocol govern how all of it is handled.
What you can expect
Key Engagement Deliverables
An expert report with per claim element analysis tied to file, function and line, claim charts anchored to specific source and build artifact evidence, and an independent development or copying timeline appendix drawn from version control where the record supports it. Where the matter calls for it, a rebuttal declaration on the opposing source code expert's report, deposition and trial testimony on the findings in the report, and documented handling of printouts under the protective order after the review closes.
If the deliverable you need most is a claim chart anchored to source, say so in the first conversation and we will scope the review room time around it.
Find the Version and Code Path That Decide It
A repository contains branches, generated files, third party libraries and code that never reached the disputed product. Before comparing or interpreting a single file, we identify the relevant version, build configuration and provenance, because a technically correct observation about the wrong build is worthless in litigation and dangerous on cross examination.
In a code similarity dispute, shared dependencies, common interfaces and generated material need separate treatment from independently authored code. A similarity score only flags where to look. Our analysis explains the specific similarities and differences, the basis for each comparison and the alternative explanations it tested.
When the issue is behavior rather than text, we trace the relevant execution path and consider whether testing can corroborate the interpretation. Reports reference files, versions and methods clearly enough for another qualified reviewer to follow the work.
Before the review room is booked, ask us to identify the version and build evidence to request so the time is spent on the code that decides the case.
What the Review Room Record Must Contain
- Version
Identify the relevant commit, build and provenance before reading a line.
- Scope
Separate the disputed code from dependencies and generated files.
- Analysis
Trace the behavior or compare the specific implementations.
- Support
Document the methods and the tests behind each finding.
Technical references
Our approach to verifying what software does aligns with the NIST guidelines for software verification.
Meet the Expert Behind the Opinion
Joseph Caruso, founder, CEO and CTO of Global Digital Forensics, carries the source code and systems background behind these opinions. His consulting expert work includes Motorola Mobility v. Microsoft and Apple v. Samsung, and his class action work has covered reservation systems, mainframe databases, source code and credit card transaction and deposit systems. Meet the GDF team, then ask for a current CV. Selection, availability and a review room conflict check come before any disclosure.
Want to confirm who would sit for the deposition? Ask which expert would be proposed for your matter and we will return availability and a conflicts check first.
Frequently asked
Venues, Schedules and Version Control
Can you accept matters in the Eastern District of Texas, the Northern District of California and the District of Delaware?
Yes. The practice regularly works across those districts. The entered order controls the review environment, access, notes, printouts, report citations and post matter handling, and each retention runs a district specific conflict check before the review room opens.
Do you take ITC 337 source code work on the Commission's compressed schedule?
Yes. ITC 337 source code work is a routine assignment. The retention confirms the expert's qualifications, conflicts, access and schedule up front and states the deliverables to be completed within the procedural schedule.
How is independent development established from version control?
Independent development analysis reviews commit history, authorship metadata and code lineage in the accused party's version control. Where the record supports it, we reconstruct a timeline that shows when features appeared, who authored them and how they relate to the trade secret plaintiff's material, and we corroborate the metadata with audit records and build artifacts because commit fields alone can be edited.
Do you produce Markman declarations, or only infringement reports?
Both. Markman claim construction declarations, infringement and non infringement reports, invalidity reports and rebuttal reports are all part of the practice, and the same expert can carry an opinion from claim construction through trial.
How are printouts and workpapers handled after trial?
Under the protective order. The report ends with a printout inventory and a handling plan that matches the order's return, destruction or archival requirements, so counsel can certify compliance without a scramble.
Talk with an examiner
Book Review Room Time With the Right Expert
Tell us the systems, evidence and deadline. We can review relevant experience, potential conflicts and the scope before engagement.
Since 1992 · 24/7 dispatch · Court tested experts
Talk with an examiner
Retain a Source Code Expert Who Can Explain the Software
On the first call a senior examiner reviews the asserted claims or trade secret definitions, the protective order terms and the schedule, then tells you which versions and build records to request and how much review room time the opinion needs. The consultation is free.
Our 24/7 hotline is (800) 868-8189.
GDF does not accept pro se litigation cases, and GDF may decline matrimonial or family law cases at our discretion.
Reviewed by Joseph Caruso, Founder, CEO and CTO, CISSP. Last reviewed .