Daily Journal Staff Writer
Los Angeles litigator Mark C. Scarsi was getting ready to take a deposition in a patent infringement case when he noticed something odd in an expert witness' report. Supplemental information had been filed, and it didn't look the same as the original report - it had a heightened degree of specificity and the sentences were written in a different style.
Scarsi, a partner at Milbank, Tweed, ...
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In