August 25, 2020 – New York, NY – DOAR, the nation’s leading trial consulting company, today released important findings from a new study that measured how jurors differ in their opinions on topics central to high tech patent litigation, including the parties involved, infringement, and validity. The results highlight both fundamental similarities and noteworthy differences among jurors in the Northern District of California (NDCA), Western District of Texas (WDTX), and the District of Delaware.
The study, “Venue Differences for High Tech IP Litigation: Comparing NDCA, WDTX, and the District of Delaware,” was conducted by the DOAR Research Center and is the only known report on this subject matter that examines key attitudinal differences of potential jurors in different venues.
“Underlying juror attitudes can help or hurt a case,” said Dr. Chad Lackey, a Director at DOAR and author of the study. “We found important traits of potential jurors within each district that will create an opportunity for attorneys who understand them to better strategize on where and how to try their case, resulting in the best possible outcome for their clients.”
A few of the key differences among potential jurors between each venue include:
- Residents of Northern California are much more tech-savvy, namely due to greater technological sophistication among Californian women, regardless of age.
- The District of Delaware is most favorable for Big Tech with 68% of Delaware residents believing large tech companies are ethical.
- Residents of West Texas are the most suspicious of foreign companies and likely to believe the justice system should favor the interests of American tech companies over their foreign counterparts.
The study did find some commonality among residents from the different venues:
- Majorities in all venues perceived NPEs as leeches; however, majorities in some notable subgroups viewed them positively.
- Majorities in all venues believe Big Tech is more likely to steal from a small tech company than another large tech company.
Also, the study reveals critical insight into jurors’ attitudes towards expert witnesses, which varied little among the venues.
Substantial majorities of jurors in all three venues:
- Prefer industry experts rather than academics
- Have no problem with experts who are highly paid
“Understanding regional differences in the attitudes and opinions of potential jurors before they hear the facts of a specific case is key to shaping their views on the issues,” said Scott Allen, President at DOAR. “Our study provides insight to trial attorneys from the outset about the preconceived notions that potential jurors walk in with and how they can impact trial strategy.”
The study was administered to nearly 800 residents in Northern California, West Texas, and Delaware. The analysis focuses on statistically significant differences between venues regarding attitudes relevant to high tech patent litigation. It also examines how sociodemographic factors affect attitudes about technology to understand better how venue differences can be exacerbated or nullified depending on the makeup of jury panels.
Download the full report of the findings.
About DOAR
DOAR is the nation’s leading trial consulting company advising lawyers at top tier law firms and major corporations. We leverage our more than 30 years of experience to provide the insight, expertise, and support required to handle the most complex, high-stakes legal disputes. We stay at the forefront of the most impactful trends and technologies affecting the legal community and deliver valuable insight that informs and advances our clients’ litigation strategies.
For more information about DOAR, visit DOAR.com and follow us at @DOARlitigation.
Media Inquiries:
Cindy Siegel
Director of Marketing
media@DOAR.com
