From Christopher G. Darrow to the federal judge who has reached this page.
If you've found this page, you're probably thinking about appointing a special master on a patent case — possibly for the first time. I wrote this page for that judge, because most of what I know about this kind of engagement isn't on a firm bio and doesn't fit in a CV. It belongs in something closer to a letter.
A short introduction first. I clerked at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan straight out of law school. I'm an engineer by training, a patent attorney by practice, and the founder of a small firm in Northville, Michigan that writes patents for some of the most ambitious technology companies in the country. I co-chair the intellectual-property committee of the Federal Bar Association's Eastern District of Michigan chapter. For the last decade, federal judges have retained me as a special master on their patent cases — dozens of them now.
Why most judges call.
The cases tend to land at one of three moments. The first is when a patent case opens and the technology is plainly outside what the chambers team can absorb in time. The second is at the start of claim-construction briefing — Markman on the calendar, the parties' tutorials in disagreement about what they're even disagreeing about. The third is when summary-judgment motions arrive and the case-dispositive ruling has to survive appeal on the technology.
None of those moments is wrong. The earlier I'm involved, the more I can quietly do. But I've come in as late as the morning of a Markman hearing and still been useful.
How I prefer to work.
There are two structurally different ways a special master can work on a patent case. In the first, the special master issues their own opinions; the parties file objections; you rule on the objections. Two motions where there used to be one. In the second, the special master works in chambers as a resource the bench can lean on. Every ruling stays the court's.
I work in the second mode by default. The case stays yours. Your court's reputation stays yours. The technical work that would otherwise consume the chambers team for weeks happens in parallel, so the analysis is ready when the bench is ready to rule. Before each major motion — Markman, summary judgment, anything case-dispositive — we sit down for a private tutorial.
We read the prosecution history together. We walk the technology line by line where needed. The closest analogy is a private tutor who visits the week before a test: by the time you're on the bench, you've already seen the material.
My job is to make sure the technology and the patent history get the treatment they need before they reach a decision you have to sign.
On settlement.
At the right point in the case — usually around month nine, once claim construction has settled the central dispute — I'll reach out to both sides and propose mediation. Most cases that reach mediation at the right time settle there. The cases I've helped settle outnumber the cases I've helped decide.
The plain things.
Your clerks don't lose work to me; they gain a specialist who teaches as we go. The parties almost never object to my appointment — when they do, it's usually about cost rather than the appointment itself, which is why I keep my rate low for this kind of work. I sign whatever protective orders are in place. I do not disclose another judge's deliberations to anyone, not even informally. I will not ask for an endorsement and I would not accept one. The most candid thing a judge could say about working with me would still be too private to publish. That's the way it should be.
If you'd like to speak with a judge I've worked with before placing the call, ask me by name and I'll see whether they'd be open to a conversation.
How to begin.
Email or a short phone call is best. Both are at the bottom of this page. If a conflicts check would be useful before the conversation, send the case number and the parties' names; I'll run the check and reply within a business day either way. If you'd rather speak first, that's also fine — we can do the conflicts conversation on the call.
I'll close where I would close a real letter: thank you for the time it took to read this. I know how full chambers gets.