Articles About Breach of Contract

4November

Jurors Said Quandary Peak Expert Was Convincing

By Quandary Peak Research

A Quandary Peak expert was cited by jurors as credible and convincing on the stand, leading to a positive outcome for the firm’s client. Jason Frankovitz testified in San Diego Superior Court in the matter of Rimma Breeze v. The Evans School, Inc. Mr. Frankovitz, an expert in Web and Internet technologies, provided expert testimony regarding typical duties and actions of an IT administrator.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Rimma Breeze, provided technical support and WordPress development services to The Evans School in 2012 to 2013 in exchange for free tuition for her children. At issue in the case was the quality and value of her services. The Evans School also alleged that Mrs. Breeze was maliciously interfering with school systems.

Mr. Frankovitz testified that Mrs. Breeze performed work in accordance with professional standards common in the IT industry, and took no malicious actions towards the school’s IT systems. Jury polling after the verdict was rendered indicated that Mr. Frankovitz’s testimony carried significantly more weight than the opposing side’s expert.

Comments (0)|Read more

10July

How to Choose an Expert Witness for a Software Patent Case

By George Edwards

The importance of software patents has increased dramatically in recent years. The high profile patent disputes between Apple, Google, and other smartphone companies have attracted the most attention in the press, but patent battles are being waged all across the software industry. As a computer scientist who has been retained as an expert in software patent disputes, I have seen firsthand how attorneys go about selecting experts to provide technical consulting and testimony in these cases. And unfortunately, most of them are going about it the wrong way. In this article, I explain why, and what the right way to select software experts is.

Two Distinct Expert Tasks

Successfully arguing that an accused software product does (or does not) infringe a particular patent requires two distinct tasks to be performed by experts: code analysis and expert testimony. First, the accused products, which are computer programs, must be analyzed to determine exactly which portions of the computer code implement the patented invention. Second, a persuasive argument, based on the evidence produced by the analysis, that the patent is (or is not) being infringed must be made in expert reports, depositions, and trial testimony.

The two tasks mentioned above seem so intrinsically linked that the obvious decision is to hire a single expert to perform both tasks. Attorneys reason that an expert should be someone who will impress a jury and intimidate the opposition, such as a senior technology professional with an established reputation in the field or a university professor with an extensive publication record in the relevant technology. Attorneys then assume that whoever is selected to prepare the expert report and testify must also personally perform the code analysis.

However, a stronger case can be built – and money saved – by […]

Comments (0)|Read more

23May

Quandary Peak Expert Assists in Contract Dispute Case

By Quandary Peak Research

Brad Ulrich, a computer scientist at Quandary Peak Research, was recently engaged to provide software analysis and consulting for Step-By-Step Academy, an Ohio-based company, in the matter of Step-By-Step Academy, Inc. v. Special Learning, Inc in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio. Special Learning is a Chicago-based company.

The case involves a dispute over the development of electronic health record (EHR) software and software designed to meet Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) compliance standards. Mr. Ulrich is evaluating software developed under contracts, and the technical performance and requirements under those contracts. Claims in the case include breach of written and oral agreements/contracts, detrimental reliance, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Mr. Ulrich’s work with the case is ongoing.

Comment (1)|Read more

8April

Ericsson Gets Paid in Patent Dispute Case Against Samsung

By Quandary Peak Research

Victories in patent dispute cases sometimes amount to little more than a moral victory. One company sues another and the judgment, if ever actually awarded, hardly covers the cost of legal fees.

On January 27, 2014, however, many were reminded that a legal victory can also carry with it pronounced economic benefits, as Ericsson experienced when it won a $650 million award in a drawn out case against Samsung.

The victory boosted the Swedish company’s stock price 2.4 percent in one day and included royalties that will provide the company with cash for years to come. JP Morgan analyst Rod Hall noted that “Ericsson’s settlement with Samsung is going to be an important future driver of its earnings. The ongoing revenue could be approximately 2.1 billion Swedish crowns annually and, with these revenues having 70% ongoing margin, they could add 5.4 percent to 2014 earnings per share.”

In this case, moral victory came with economic upside.

A Look Back on the Details of the Case

In 2001, Samsung signed a licensing deal with Ericsson involving Global System for Communications (GSM), Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), and LTE standards that covered both handset and network patents. Everything was fine until 2011 when the deal ran out, and Ericsson asked for a significantly higher royalty rate.

Samsung refused the deal on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) grounds. Owners of standard-essential patents are often required to license those patents on FRAND terms. Samsung asserted that after Ericsson sold its 50% stake in mobile phone maker Sony Ericsson to Sony for $1.46 billion in 2011, they were repositioning themselves as nothing more than another patent troll.

After Samsung’s accusations, Ericsson took legal action by filing a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Samsung retaliated by filing a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission over the […]

Comments (0)|Read more

31July

Expert Opinion on Cost and Risk of Enterprise Architectures

By Quandary Peak Research

Brad Ulrich, a computer scientist at Quandary Peak Research, was recently engaged to provided expert software analysis and opinions for the County of Montgomery County in the matter of Yasmin Reyazuddin v. Montgomery County, Maryland.

The case involves enterprise software used at the County’s 311 Call Center and its accessibility under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The software in question is a COTS implementation of Oracle’s Siebel software, and proposed solutions included the use of a customized add-on in the form of .NET business objects and EAI software.

Mr. Ulrich used a software cost modeling and estimation technique known as COCOMO to perform cost and level-of-effort analyses, and opined on the feasibility and risks of proposed implementations.

Mr. Ulrich’s work with the case is ongoing. He was deposed by opposing counsel in February and is awaiting additional action by the court.

Comments (0)|Read more

26July

Sam Malek Opines on Potential Security Breach

By Quandary Peak Research

Dr. Sam Malek is providing his expert opinion in the matter of Lotchinbek Samatov, Jakhongir Samatov, and SSD Software Solutions v. AirShowBuzz, a lawsuit that involves questions of information security and data access control. Malek was retained by Michelman & Robinson LLP, a national firm with offices in Los Angeles, New York, Orange County, Sacramento, and San Francisco.

Comments (0)|Read more

1July

Utilizing a Source Code Analyst in Software Patent Infringement Suits: Finding and Selecting the Right Analyst

By Brad Ulrich

Welcome to the first segment in this series articles on Utilizing a Source Code Analyst in Software Patent Infringement Suits. In my role as both a source code analyst and software expert witness, I have worked closely with top IP firms and Fortune 500 companies to uncover critical source code evidence in software dispute and patent infringement cases. In this series, I discuss the essential steps required for an attorney to engage and best-utilize a source code analyst in a patent infringement case – covering various pitfalls and offering solutions to common problems along the way.

We approach the series in chronological order, starting with basic topics such as: benefits of hiring a source code analyst, what to look for in an analyst, and how to go about finding a good analyst for your case. Future articles will delve further into other key areas including: essential steps in engaging an analyst, proper preparation for a code review, documenting findings for your case, essential communication with your analyst, and how to prepare optimal code cites for expert reports.

Let’s get started!

Benefits of Hiring a Source Code Analyst for Litigation

There are several good reasons to engage a dedicated analyst for review of source code in a patent infringement case. I will cover a few of these briefly here, but for an in-depth discussion of why you should consider hiring a dedicated code analyst in addition to a testifying expert, see the article: Selecting the Right Software Expert in Patent Disputes.

A dedicated software analyst provides a set of skills that is often quite different from a testifying expert. A good source code analyst is particularly trained and skilled at writing and reviewing code in the language (i.e., Java, C++, PHP, etc.) […]

Comment (1)|Read more

10July

Quandary Peak to Provide Expert Opinion in Software Lawsuit

By Quandary Peak Research

Quandary Peak Research has been retained to provide an expert opinion in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract by a software development organization.

The complaint, filed in US District Court, alleges the defendants billed unreasonable amounts for programming services and failed to provide working software within the agreed time period.

Expert consultants at Quandary Peak will analyze the software in question and determine whether it meets industry standards of quality, was developed in a professional manner, and is commensurate with the fees billed.

Comments (0)|Read more