The motivation and ability of jurors to carefully consider technical arguments and evidence should drive the development of case themes.

As a general rule in complex cases, the fewer arguments that are presented, the better. It is essential to filter the noise in the case and focus jurors’ attention on selected arguments that have the greatest probability of success.

In many cases, jurors question why an alleged infringer is challenging the validity of a patent if there has been no infringement. Jurors reason that if there has been no infringement, then there would be no reason to argue that a patent is invalid.

Although jurors willingly accept their role as arbiters of patent infringement because such judgments focus on whether the accused infringer has done something wrong, jurors have a more difficult time understanding why they are being asked to make determinations about patent validity. Consequently, jurors often begin trial confused about their role and require instruction about the process of challenging the validity of a patent.

If your client has been accused of infringement, jurors will want to know how your client came to develop or acquire its own technology or process. If your client holds the patent, jurors need to hear about the hard work and inventive genius that led to the invention.

There is a certain mysticism that surrounds inventors. Cultivating testimony from an inventor who can effectively tell the story of the invention is essential for establishing the credibility of the invention.

Plaintiffs in patent infringement cases sometimes make the mistake of proffering a request for damages that is too modest. Jurors often believe that the more important the patent, the more money should be awarded for infringement.

Animations are an effective way to illustrate technical claim language or demonstrate the functional capability of a device. However, such comparisons can also serve to "bring life" to the invention, which may be counterproductive, particularly if there are questions about whether the invention would ever work.

While the emergence of “patent trolls” has become a significant issue for intellectual property lawyers and corporate licensing departments, arguments about patent trolls are generally unpersuasive for jurors. Jurors are more interested in making a determination about whether the patent – not the patent holder – is meritorious.

Jurors who understand which party has the burden of proof and the standard of evidence that is to be applied to questions of infringement, validity, and willful infringement will be best prepared to defend their position during deliberations.