June, 2015 – Prepared expert report and was deposed by defendant’s attorneys in their law offices, Chicago, IL. US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 1:14-cv-00312
I served as expert witness and provided opinion related to patient harm caused by medical procedure. Prepared my export report and appeared for deposition on 22 September, 2015. I served on behalf of plaintiff. I was informed that case settled in favor of plaintiff for undisclosed amount.
Geoffrey Gifford – Pavalon & Gifford
October, 2013 – Deposition taken in US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division in front of Federal Judge, Raleigh, NC. Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-00662
Appeared as expert witness and gave testimony in front of judge in Federal Court in support of my expert report, submitted in the complaint related to patent claims, medical device design and specifically, infringement complaint in behalf of my client. Case remains open & unresolved.
Joe Zito – DNL Zito
July, 2010 – Personal injury caused by faulty contact lenses Kallal vs CIBA Vision et al. Case 1:09-cv-03346 in the US District Court of Northern District of Illinois
Patient was injured by CIBA gas permeable contact lenses that were made and distributed although it was determined that they lenses at issue were out of specification as defined in the FDA regulatory clearances and requirements. I am serving as expert for plaintiff to explain how composition of the lenses can directly affect performance and adversely affect the eyes of the wearers. Case settled but I have no details.
Nicola Tancredi – Law Offices of Nicola S. Tancredi
October, 2008 – Patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation case I-Flow Corporation vs Apex Medical Technologies, etc. Case No. 07-cv-1200 DMS (NLS), United States District Court for the Southern District of California
I served as an expert for the plaintiffs, I-Flow, related to the interpretation of patent claims and business practices. My thorough understanding of the related polymer technology and processing allowed specific assessment of patent information and the formation of rendered opinions. I-Flow prevailed.
Boris Zelkind - Knobbe Martens,