In my experience, the aim of every law is that it be written in as clear and concise a manner as possible, supported and made clearer by rulings of courts over time with regard to its practice. Each of these rulings builds upon the next, creating a complex web of standards and justifications upon which lawyers on both sides of future cases attempt to hang their arguments. To the first time juror, the narratives at play in the courtroom can feel contradictory, superfluous, and convoluted. Luckily a good demonstrative graphic can take even the most complex idea and turn it into an easily teachable moment. These are the moments I enjoy the most.
It is true…the best teacher, wins. Time and time again a winning case is sunk by its inability to teach the case in a simple and easy to understand way. Designing demonstrative graphics for litigation requires a boiling down of the central themes necessary to a case, designing everything for the quickest read possible. There is no room for glossy, beautiful art here. If it detracts from the story, pulling the attention of the juror away from the argument at hand, then it serves no purpose.
| Notable Cases by Type | Case Name |
|---|---|
| Personal Injury | Glenn Burton, Jr. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Com |
| Patent | Stemcells, Inc. et al v. Neuralstem, Inc. |
| Breach of Contract | Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. |
| Patent | Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. |
| Breach of Contract | Apple Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company |
| Personal Injury | Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Class Action |
| Patent | Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC |
| Patent | Stratos Lightwave, Inc. v. Picolight, Inc. |
| Patent | Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. |
| Personal Injury | IBM Workers v American Hoechst Corp. |
| Patent | Eastman Kodak Company v. Agfa-Gevaert N.V |
| Personal Injury | Cooper Tire & Rubber Class Action |
| Breach of Contract | Clark Construction Group Inc. v. Allglass Systems, Inc. |