In the March 2006 print issue of the ABA Journal, Leslie Gordon writes about how several intellectual property litigators track down experts that both know their material and are effective at presenting their findings to the jury.

When intellectual property litigator Roger L. Cook looks for an expert witness to provide testimony in one of the prior art infringement cases he’s trying, he doesn’t just look for strings of advanced degrees or an association with a venerable academic institution. He’s also looking for someone who can translate technical concepts into plain English.

Although many technical issues in IP cases are first heard by a judge during the Markman hearing, it does not automatically follow that such issues will be resolved to the point that a jury can easily grasp the complicated concepts involved. So finding an expert who can effectively translate complex material to a jury can be crucial to making a strong case.

Yet finding an expert with these skills can be as difficult as obtaining a patent itself. That’s why Cook has become one of a growing number of IP lawyers who get creative when gauging the jury-savviness of a potential expert witness.

Cook often starts his search by going to RateMyProfessors.com, a free online service that allows students to post anonymous numerical ratings and comments on a teacher’s helpfulness, clarity and easiness. According to the site, visitors can search some 5 million ratings of 700,000 professors at more than 5,000 schools.

Even expert witness banks and litigation consulting companies—long among a lawyer’s first lines of inquiry—are taking note of the increasing emphasis on jury-savviness and are adjusting their application processes accordingly.

Chicago patent attorney Richard Beem finds potential witnesses the way many of his colleagues do: by word-of-mouth referrals from other lawyers and industry professionals. But it’s the second step that sets Beem’s style apart and, he believes, makes his cases stronger.

When it comes to hiring an expert, Beem looks for someone who approaches an explanation like Lincoln. As in Abraham Lincoln.

“I prefer someone who is practicing their profession, someone who is grounded and more real-world—more Lincoln-like,” he explains.

Another critical factor to help determine if your potential witness will present the facts effectively in court is asking how involved the expert will be in the underlying analysis. I have seen several instances where extremely bright and polished experts performed poorly in depositions or at trial because they relied on a team to build the expert report with little of their own direct involvement. Even the sharpest individual can't learn the material on the eve of trial. So find out how involved they will be, ask their references how involved they were on prior cases and follow-up at several points during their analysis to test their understanding of the details.