Dr. Farber regularly works in state courts, U.S. district courts, and the International Trade Commission. He has testified in U.S. district court, and provided analyses of monopolization and attempted monopolization, lost profits and reasonable royalty damages, unjust enrichment, irreparable economic injury, domestic industry considerations, and commercial success. Prior to beginning graduate studies, Dr. Farber taught middle and high school math in two Title 1 public schools in Houston and served as department chair, data chair, and soccer coach. 

Examples of Dr. Farber’s work include: 

• Testifying expert in a patent and trademark infringement matter relating to carts used for shopping and transport of large items. Dr. Farber submitted a report and provided expert testimony at trial on behalf of dbest Products Inc. in patent and trademark litigation involving a transport cart patent embodied by dbest’s Trolley Dolly line of products. After a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of dbest with a damages award in the exact amount of the lost profits damages testified to by Dr. Farber. 

• Testifying expert in two patent infringement matters relating to lighting patents. Dr. Farber submitted a report and provided expert testimony at two trials on behalf of SVV Technology Innovations in patent litigation involving computer monitors. At the conclusion of both trials, the jury returned a damages award in line with damages testified to by Dr. Farber.  

• Testifying expert in a patent infringement matter relating to kinesiology tape. Dr. Farber submitted a report and provided deposition testimony on behalf of KT Health, LLC in patent litigation. 

• Analyzed antitrust and anti-competitive behaviors allegations involving monopolization and tying related to mobile app distribution under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Dr. Farber addressed issues including market definition, market power, and tying behavior; evaluated pro-competitive justifications and anti-competitive effects of tying on market participants generally and plaintiffs specifically; determined a but-for commission; and analyzed overcharge damages based on the difference between actual commission and but-for commission.