New England Intellectual Property's Richard Baker is uniquely qualified to serve as an expert witness on several subjects related to intellectual property. As an accomplished speaker, he is able to clearly articulate facts to a jury or in a deposition. As a seasoned licensing executive, Rich Baker has the knowledge and experience to opine on the intricacies of operating an intellectual property department and on the standard practices and rates used in licensing technology.
In their January 2011 Uniloc v Microsoft decision, the Federal Circuit stated "The meaning of these cases is clear: there must be a basis in fact to associate the royalty rates used in prior licenses to the particular hypothetical negotiation at issue in the case. The 25 percent rule of thumb as an abstract and largely theoretical construct fails to satisfy this fundamental requirement." An expert can no longer assert that a royalty rate of 25% of profit should be allocated to the plaintiff. Instead, an expert with significant experience in patent licensing negotiations is needed to opine on the dynamics of the hypothetical negotiation. With our extensive experience negotiating licenses and settlements of patent disputes, we are uniquely qualified to provide expert testimony on hypothetical licensing negotiations.
In addition, his 20 years of work on all aspects of factory automation software provides Mr. Baker with the ability to serve as a expert witness in factory automation matters.
Rich Baker has participated in twelve depositions and has twice testified live before a jury. He has also served as an expert witness in Authenex v EMC, GPNE v O&R Patent Law, Intellectual Ventures v Capital One, and as a consulting expert in another confidential case.
Expert Testimony in a Mediation Proceeding before Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler in GPNE v O&R Patent Law (US District Court of Massachusetts, 1:15-cv-13481-PBS), May 3, 2016.
Legislative Testimony to the in Opposition of Massachusetts HR 4082 – Non-Compete Agreements, before the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, Massachusetts State House Room B-1, July 1, 2014.
Deposition as a third party witness in US Ethernet Innovations v Acer et al (N.D. of California, 10-CV-3724), May 3, 2013, October 29-30, 2013 and April 17, 2014.
Expert Report for Arbitration in Wireless Ink v Facebook and Google (SD New York, 10 Civ. 1841 (PKC)), January 12, 2012.
Live Testimony for 3Com Corporation in Network-1 Security Systems v CISCO et al (E.D. of Texas, 08-CV-0030), July 14, 2010.
30(b)(6) Deposition for 3Com Corporation in Network-1 Security Systems v CISCO et al (E.D. of Texas, 08-CV-0030), December 9, 2009 and March 17, 2010.
Live Testimony for 3Com Corporation in 3Com v DLink and Realtek (N.D. of California, 03-CV-2177), 3Com v DLink (N.D. of California 05CV0098), March 26, 2008.
Deposition as a third party in Michael Femal v. Square D et al (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, 04 L 13302), January 2, 2008.
30(b)(6) Deposition for third party 3Com Corporation in Rackable Systems v Super Micro Computer (N.D. of California, 05-CV-3561), February 2, 2007.
30(b)(6) Deposition for 3Com Corporation in 3Com v DLink and Realtek (N.D. of California, 03-CV-2177), 3Com v DLink (N.D. of California 05-CV-0098), November 30, 2006.
Deposition for third party Schneider Automation in Solaia v Arvinmeritor, (N.D. Illinois, 02-CV-4704), 2003.
30(b)(6) Deposition for Schneider Automation in Schneider Automation v Opto22, (C.D. of California, 02-CV-4859), 2003.
Deposition for Schneider Automation in Schneider Automation v Opto22, (C.D. of California, 02-CV-4859), 2002.