Scott Steinberg · Consultant, Analyst and Business Strategist
Serious IP disputes rarely stay in one lane. A single matter carries patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret claims at once, and the commercial story underneath them has to hold together across all four. A consultant to 3000+ brands, Scott Steinberg works on areas like the portfolio-level and commercial questions those matters raise.
Expert reports, declarations, deposition and trial testimony on multi-right disputes, trade secrets, IP valuation, portfolio strategy, transaction diligence, enforcement practice and more.
Patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, infringement and more. Hire trial testifying, consulting and law firm advisory services for attorneys.
Where patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret claims run together, the commercial account underneath them has to be consistent. Inconsistency between theories is a standard line of attack.
Testimony supplies the single commercial narrative: what was developed, when, by whom, how it was protected, and how it was brought to market across every right asserted.
The threshold question is whether the information was genuinely proprietary or was standard practice documented openly across the industry, and whether reasonable measures were taken to keep it secret.
Testimony addresses what the field publicly knew and what secrecy practice organisations of that type ordinarily maintained, which is the factual ground both elements stand on.
Portfolio value depends on what was assembled, why, how it was used commercially, and what comparable portfolios have transacted for in that category.
Testimony supplies those market facts and addresses whether an asserted valuation reflects commercial reality or an aggregation of theoretical maximums.
Deal disputes involve what diligence was performed, what representations were made about IP ownership and freedom to operate, and what a reasonable acquirer would have examined.
Testimony establishes diligence practice for transactions of that size and sector, and where the process at issue departed from it.
Questions arise about whether a rights holder policed consistently, how notice and demand practice compared to convention, and whether enforcement patterns support or undermine the position asserted.
Testimony describes enforcement practice in the category and characterises the conduct at issue against it.
Collaboration disputes involve contribution attribution, background versus foreground IP, ownership defaults where terms were thin, and what each party brought to a joint effort.
Testimony addresses how collaborations of that kind are ordinarily structured and what the parties would reasonably have expected to own.
Product IP disputes frequently involve third-party and open source components, their licence obligations, and whether the organisation maintained the inventory and review practice its sector expects.
Testimony addresses component governance practice at the relevant time and how the organisation's approach compared.
Many IP arguments rest on a factual timeline: when something was developed, when it shipped, how it was marketed, and what the market response was.
Testimony assembles that history from product records, trade coverage, marketing material and documented releases, and supplies the chronology other theories depend on.
Portfolio matters generate large document sets across multiple rights, so early scoping of what actually needs review saves substantially more than it costs.
Written opinions on portfolio value, trade secret status, commercialisation history and enforcement practice.
Testimony holding the commercial narrative together across patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret claims.
Responsive analysis of valuation approach, secrecy assertions and assumptions about industry practice.
Non-testifying portfolio assessment, diligence review and discovery scoping across multiple rights.
Scott Steinberg is an analyst, consultant and business trends expert with over 25 years of experience providing management and strategic consulting services to more than 3,000 businesses and brands ranging from startups to government agencies and Fortune 500 firms.
He has testified in sample areas including intellectual property — copyrights, trademarks and patents — patent infringement, marketing, branding, video games, mobile applications, consumer product development, and the growth and monetization of online distribution platforms.
He is the author of over 30 books and has published more than five thousand articles addressing areas including but not limited to marketing, technology, leadership, innovation, advertising, digital transformation, data privacy and social networks. He appears regularly on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC, and has led seminars and training programs for organizations including Wells Fargo, the PGA Tour, Century 21, Ford, Dell and Procter & Gamble.
His consulting work has been broadly recognized. He has served as a thought leader for the American Bar Association and Corporate Counsel magazine, and has received honors from the International Association for Scholastic Excellence, Fortune, and the 21st Century Icon Awards, among others.
In this practice, an IP expert witness addresses all manner of intellectual property disputes: how rights were assembled and used, what a portfolio is worth, whether information qualified as a trade secret in its market, what diligence a transaction required, how the commercial history actually ran, and more.
When a matter carries several kinds of claim at once, or when the question is about the portfolio, the transaction or the commercial history rather than about one right. Where a case turns on likelihood of confusion alone, or on prior art for a single patent, a specialist in that right is usually the better choice.
Two factual questions an industry expert can address: whether the information was genuinely proprietary or was standard practice openly documented in the field, and whether the organisation maintained the secrecy measures that organisations of its type ordinarily maintain. Both are evidentiary rather than theoretical.
By reference to what comparable portfolios have transacted for, what licensing revenue the assets actually generated, and how the rights were used commercially, as some sample options. A valuation that aggregates theoretical maximums for each individual asset rarely survives scrutiny, and testing that aggregation is a common assignment.
Yes. Consulting-only engagements cover portfolio assessment, diligence review, discovery scoping across multiple rights, deposition question preparation and critique of an opposing expert's valuation or secrecy analysis, without a disclosed report or testimony.
Initial conversations about scope, timing and conflicts are without charge. Helpful detail includes the rights involved, the transaction or conduct at issue and any expert disclosure deadline already set.
A conflicts check is run before any substantive discussion. An initial note listing the party names and a one-line description of the dispute is enough to start; please hold privileged or confidential material until the check clears.