Bridging the Gap Between Technical Fluency and Economic Impact: A Q&A with Peter Finch and Nathan Trujillo

Economic consulting engagements often call for proficiencies that fall outside the bounds of traditional tools such as economic theory and statistical analysis.

Such matters can range from a dispute over the development of an engineering system to cases involving chemical compounds or code review. When staffing these matters, it’s critical not only to have the right expert but also to ensure that they have the support of a team that can engage with them on the details of their analyses.

Assisting such experts is one of the main focuses of Analysis Group’s Technology practice, which supports technical experts in matters that span industries and technological products. In this Q&A, Vice Presidents Peter Finch and Nathan Trujillo share some of their recent technology-related work and discuss the nuances of translating scientific and technical matters into economic insights. Mr. Finch holds a master’s degree in electrical engineering and has supported experts in litigation involving computer hardware, aerospace, and manufacturing, as well as other technology-related assignments. Dr. Trujillo holds doctoral and master’s degrees in chemical engineering and supports experts in matters involving technologies such as semiconductors and medical devices.

What types of cases do you both work on, and what role does your team play in preparing for litigation?

Peter Finch: Vice President, Analysis Group

Mr. Finch: My background is in electrical engineering and finance, and I primarily support expert witnesses in cases involving technology, antitrust, and financial markets. These include disputes related to microprocessors, telecommunications systems, manufacturing processes, aerospace, and, often, economic issues such as competition or valuation.

My teams work closely with experts to develop their analyses, structure their opinions, and communicate their findings in a way that aligns with legal strategy and resonates with decision makers. For example, in a dispute involving the development of a bitcoin mining ASIC [application-specific integrated circuit], we supported an expert in chip design and verification to evaluate how far along the project was and what remained to be done. Payments under the contract were tied to development milestones, so our analysis helped determine whether deliverables had been met and what additional work was still required.

Dr. Trujillo: I have a background in chemical engineering and business, and I bring a cross-disciplinary approach to cases in intellectual property and the regulatory and commercial litigation space.

My teams work closely with experts to help them interpret analytical testing results, assess product composition or performance, and translate these findings into economic or legal frameworks. As with Peter’s work, this requires fluency in technical domains – in my case, materials science, chemistry, and engineering – in addition to the usual economic toolkit.

One matter that exemplifies this approach involves a case in the brewing and beverage industry. Our team was tasked with analyzing the differences between traditional beer and hard seltzer products by evaluating, from a chemical engineering standpoint, the underlying manufacturing processes and ingredients, including the distinct unit operations used in each. This included reviewing fermentation pathways, ingredient profiles, and the chemical characteristics of the final products. Our understanding of process engineering and analytical testing methods helped inform our expert’s opinions about product categorization. We also played a key role in helping the expert communicate complex chemical concepts clearly and effectively to a lay audience during a jury trial.

How do you approach working with an expert witness?

Nathan Trujillo: Vice President, Analysis Group

Dr. Trujillo: We act as a critical link between the expert’s technical insights and the broader legal or regulatory narrative. That often means working directly with data from lab testing, simulations, or industrial processes, and ensuring that the expert’s opinions are supported by a rigorous, transparent foundation. Whether it’s translating chemical purity profiles into implications for product performance or aligning engineering assumptions with the structure of a damages model, our role is to make sure the analysis that supports the expert’s opinions is both technically sound and accessible to the intended audience.

To take another recent example: We supported an expert in materials chemistry who was evaluating whether a manufacturer’s raw materials met certain technical criteria relevant to government incentive programs. The work involved assessing chemical and material suitability for a specialized industrial application, which required interpreting technical standards, reviewing analytical testing protocols, and mapping scientific findings to evolving policy language.

Mr. Finch: My approach is similar to Nathan’s. My teams often work with technical experts who are highly accomplished in their fields but new to the litigation process. We guide them through each stage – helping them review documents, frame their analysis, draft clear reports, and prepare for deposition and trial. The goal is to make sure they’re confident and effective in a legal environment, whether they’re testifying in court or presenting technical findings in a written report. With the right support, these experts often become exceptionally effective witnesses.

In one matter involving satellite propulsion systems, we supported experts in an investigation by a regulator, which alleged that a SPAC [special purpose acquisition company] had made misleading statements to investors about its space technology. Our team helped assess the technical claims and the results of in-space testing and evaluated how all that was communicated in investor materials. This kind of case required close collaboration with scientific specialists, a deep understanding of regulatory expectations, and the ability to connect technical findings to alleged misrepresentations.

At its core, Analysis Group is an economic consulting firm. Can you share a case that highlights your work at that intersection of technology and economics?

Mr. Finch: One example involved supporting experts in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm, a major antitrust case centered on the modem chip industry. We helped evaluate claims that Qualcomm’s conduct had discouraged market entry and suppressed innovation. In part, that meant tackling standard economic questions such as competitive dynamics and market foreclosure. But it also meant assessing technical factors – like chip design and R&D cycles. In another matter, we worked on a tax dispute involving a hard disk manufacturer, in which we analyzed several years of operations and financial data from a regional subsidiary to evaluate how much value was created in different parts of the supply chain.

Dr. Trujillo: Many of the patent cases I work on center on technologies that require both a deep technical understanding and a strong economic framework – things like semiconductor design, advanced manufacturing, or network systems. They often involve multiple testifying experts across disciplines. Coordinating these perspectives is critical to ensuring that all experts stay within their core areas, and that the overall narrative is cohesive and credible. In these matters, my role is often to help connect the technical details of the invention to the structure of the damages analysis. That means understanding how the technology works, how it fits into a broader system or production process, and how it might affect performance, cost, or commercial outcomes. For example, in a matter involving semiconductor fabrication, my engineering background helped us map the claimed technical benefits to economically meaningful outcomes, such as improvements in yield or cost savings.

This type of approach is especially important in evaluating whether the patented feature, often part of a highly complex and multi-component system, actually drives value, which is something that’s often contested in litigation. We’re not just asking, “Was it used?” We’re asking, “Did it matter economically?” That’s where technical fluency is critical. ■