<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>BullsEye Blog</title>
	
	<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog</link>
	<description>A legal blog on expert witness topics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 16:21:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/BullseyeBlog" /><feedburner:info uri="bullseyeblog" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>BullseyeBlog</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><item>
		<title>Joinder Update: Pre-AIA Victory – Stage Set for Future?</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~3/PCNsdYs9W8Y/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/joinder-update-pre-aia-victory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 13:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Authors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eastern District of Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In Re EMC Corp.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joinder of parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multiple defendants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=1324</guid>
		<description>Act One: Picture the Scene Your client is named as a defendant, together with a host of other companies, in a patent action filed in federal district court. You find yourself defending the action with unrelated companies – companies with whom your client has nothing in common but for the patents at issue. To make matters worse, the co-defendants are &lt;a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/joinder-update-pre-aia-victory/'&gt;[more]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~4/PCNsdYs9W8Y" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/joinder-update-pre-aia-victory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/joinder-update-pre-aia-victory/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>2nd Circuit Upholds Attorney’s Fees:  3 Lessons in $3.5 Million</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~3/IOo54ykKYV4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/2nd-circuit-upholds-attorneys-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 15:35:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney's fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterfeiting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lanham Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=1290</guid>
		<description>Can a trademark counterfeiting and infringement plaintiff elect statutory damages instead of actual damages under the Lanham Act and still receive attorney’s fees? The 2nd Circuit recently answered that question in the affirmative – to the tune of $3.5 million dollars – leaving some valuable lessons in its wake. In a March 29, 2012 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals &lt;a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/2nd-circuit-upholds-attorneys-fees/'&gt;[more]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~4/IOo54ykKYV4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/2nd-circuit-upholds-attorneys-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/2nd-circuit-upholds-attorneys-fees/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Patent Opinion Paves Way for Expert Testimony</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~3/7-0NsZ3g8Zk/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/supreme-court-patent-opinion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 22:21:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Ambrogi, Contributing Author</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Authors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Ambrogi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kappos v. Hyatt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=1271</guid>
		<description>The Supreme Court has issued a new patent law opinion that could signal a greater need for expert testimony in patent-related civil actions in federal district courts. In the April 18 opinion, Kappos v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court resolved a question that had divided the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and many practitioners. At issue was the extent to which &lt;a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/supreme-court-patent-opinion/'&gt;[more]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~4/7-0NsZ3g8Zk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/supreme-court-patent-opinion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/supreme-court-patent-opinion/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Intriguing IP Cases – Our Top 4 for 2012 (So Far)</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~3/S5oh0nU0u54/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/intriguing-ip-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 13:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intriguing Cases 2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=1227</guid>
		<description>One can hardly check the daily news feed from their favorite syndicators without encountering yet another high profile intellectual property headline. Whether it’s a breaking story about the NFL cracking down on counterfeiters, or the April 18th U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding a dissatisfied patent applicant’s ability to introduce new evidence, intellectual property related lawsuits dominate headlines. We decided to &lt;a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/intriguing-ip-cases/'&gt;[more]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~4/S5oh0nU0u54" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/intriguing-ip-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/intriguing-ip-cases/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Spells Out ‘Red Flags’ to Watch for in Experts</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~3/Zg_6njrtY0w/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/court-spells-out-red-flags/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:45:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Ambrogi, Contributing Author</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daubert / Frye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Ambrogi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grounds for challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[red flags]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=1179</guid>
		<description>Lawyers are always on the lookout for grounds to challenge their opponents’ expert witnesses. Imagine if those very experts would help you find their Achilles’ heels, sending up red flags that alerted you to their vulnerabilities. Well, maybe they already do. All you need is to know what to look for. If you need any help in identifying those red &lt;a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/court-spells-out-red-flags/'&gt;[more]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~4/Zg_6njrtY0w" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/court-spells-out-red-flags/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/court-spells-out-red-flags/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>A Siri-ous Affair?</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~3/B1nt0QmvSy4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/a-siri-ous-affair/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:03:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fazio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone 4s]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[siri]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=1157</guid>
		<description>Apple’s intelligent personal assistant Siri is creating quite a frenzy lately, but perhaps not in the way Apple envisioned when unleashing it on the smartphone market last October. Siri has incited the passions of a few hard-to-please iPhone customers, one of whom took his case to a California federal court in March. Fazio’s Allegations…Siri-ously? On March 6, Frank M. Fazio, &lt;a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/a-siri-ous-affair/'&gt;[more]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~4/B1nt0QmvSy4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/a-siri-ous-affair/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/a-siri-ous-affair/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Expert Was Free to Change his Mind, 8th Circuit Rules</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~3/Kf-Rqhvzu8k/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/expert-free-to-change-mind/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Ambrogi, Contributing Author</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Authors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Ambrogi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change of opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duty to update]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expert Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expert Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FRCP 26]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=1113</guid>
		<description>When an expert has a change of mind about his or her own opinion, what does it mean to the case? A recent decision from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sheds new light on this recurring question. The issue is one that comes up with surprising regularity, sometimes with dramatic consequences. Just last year, an article published here, &lt;a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/expert-free-to-change-mind/'&gt;[more]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~4/Kf-Rqhvzu8k" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/expert-free-to-change-mind/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/expert-free-to-change-mind/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Witness This – An “Expert” Resource that Won’t Sit on the Bookshelf</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~3/e7cFfYMYhyo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/expert-witness-resource-that-wont-sit-on-bookshelf/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:59:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Authors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Book Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daubert / Frye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daubert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert resource]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expert Witness Answer Book 2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert witness procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muti-jurisdictional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practising Law Institute]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=1048</guid>
		<description>If you’re searching for a resource that contains almost everything you wanted to know about the federal and state multi-jurisdictional expert witness world, look no further. The Practising Law Institute has recently published its Expert Witness Answer Book 2012, an up-to-date treatise covering the most current information available on the evolving and ever-growing body of federal law, state law, and &lt;a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/expert-witness-resource-that-wont-sit-on-bookshelf/'&gt;[more]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~4/e7cFfYMYhyo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/expert-witness-resource-that-wont-sit-on-bookshelf/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/expert-witness-resource-that-wont-sit-on-bookshelf/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Riding the Social Media Wave – Ethical Implications</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~3/VrSFtEwcn3M/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/riding-the-social-media-wave/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ABA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commission on Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[draft resolutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media expert]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=1007</guid>
		<description>For attorneys previously reluctant to dive into the world of online social media, the benefits of utilizing social networking as part of an effective marketing strategy are now undeniable.   Navigating the social media world can be fraught with legal dangers and complex ethical issues unique to the legal profession, and often the rules regulating ethical compliance for attorneys are ambiguous at &lt;a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/riding-the-social-media-wave/'&gt;[more]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~4/VrSFtEwcn3M" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/riding-the-social-media-wave/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/riding-the-social-media-wave/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit Allows Expert to Testify, Despite Defective Report</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~3/pf79OMiwYwo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/8th-circuit-allows-expert-despite-defective-report/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Ambrogi, Contributing Author</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Authors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Ambrogi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expert Witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FRCP 26]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harmless]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testify]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=964</guid>
		<description>Who would have thought that a visit to Wal-Mart would turn into a lesson in the use of expert evidence at trial? But that is exactly what happened to Bonnie Rodrick when she visited a Wal-Mart in Maryville, Mo., and tripped on a rug, fracturing her hip. Tragically for Ms. Rodrick, her hip did not heal well. After multiple surgeries, &lt;a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/8th-circuit-allows-expert-despite-defective-report/'&gt;[more]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BullseyeBlog/~4/pf79OMiwYwo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/8th-circuit-allows-expert-despite-defective-report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2012/8th-circuit-allows-expert-despite-defective-report/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>

