EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2024) In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week, the court addressed issues of infringement and admissibility that arose...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This periodic digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
The longer and more frequently a principle is repeated by the courts, the more difficult it can be for courts to acknowledge change. As illustrated by the First Circuit’s opinion in Rodriguez v. Hospital San Cristobal, Inc.,...more
Recent Amendments to the Rules Governing Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 - In litigation, everything ultimately boils down to proof; that is, how the parties prove their claims and defenses....more
When product liability actions involving one or more common issues of fact (e.g., an allegedly harmful product or chemical) are filed in multiple jurisdictions, they are typically consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a...more
In a late-March 2023 decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, a court denied a plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees against a defendant who filed "objectively specious" counterclaims...more
The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure unanimously approved several amendments on June 7, 2022, to clarify Federal Rule of Evidence 702—the federal standard for admissibility of expert testimony. See Daubert v....more
A recent decision from Judge Stark, now presiding at the Federal Circuit, endorses the use, by a patent owner’s damages expert, of sales projections and a “litigation risk multiplier” in determining reasonably royalty...more
A recent order from the Northern District of California in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., No. 19-cv-06593 (Jan. 27, 2022) (“Edwards”), provides guidance regarding the ability (or inability) to...more
There are two sure-fire ways to maximize the chances that a consumer survey gets bounced out of federal court: (1) surveying the wrong people; and (2) leading them to a desired “correct” answer. Both of these survey maladies...more
On August 26, in MCL Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed exclusion of an expert opinion regarding a reasonable royalty, holding that the district court did not abuse its...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to preclude a damage expert from characterizing license agreements and opining on a reasonable royalty rate where the sponsoring party...more
Expert testimony plays a critical role in nearly all putative class actions, including at the class certification stage where parties rely on expert evidence to address the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23....more
On October 15, 2018, the Florida Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, settled the long running debate about the appropriate admissibility standard for expert opinions in Florida state courts. ...more
Takeaway: The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that inadmissible evidence may be considered in ruling on a motion for class certification. But does inadmissible evidence really qualify as evidence? Notwithstanding the evidentiary...more
In order to certify a class action, it is the plaintiff’s burden to prove that all of the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied. In some class actions, plaintiffs cannot proceed without...more
In a cautionary tale for the defense bar, the Third Circuit recently upheld a consumer's TCPA claims and reversed summary judgment on the FDCPA claims in Daubert v. NRA, Nos. 16-3613 and 16-3629 (3d Cir. July 3, 2017)....more
Andrews, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to no literal or indirect infringement is denied; as to no infringement under the DOE is granted; as to no willfulness is granted. Defendants’ motion to limit damages to...more
Applying its previous rulings in related litigation and interpreting FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. 756 (2013), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was tasked with determining whether to preclude expert...more
M2M Solutions LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12-33 - RGA, February 25, 2016 - Andrews, J. Defendant’s motion to exclude damages experts’ testimony is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude opinions of...more
On February 25, 2016, Judge Richard Andrews granted the parties’ cross-motions to exclude both sides’ damages experts in M2M Solutions LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., C.A. No. 12-33-RGA, Dkt. Nos. 295 and 296 (D. Del. Feb....more
As I previously posted, in 2011 North Carolina became a Daubert state which raised the bar for the admissibility of expert testimony in NC state courts. In April of 2015, the NC Court of Appeals issued its first decision...more
On May 14, 2015, the Southern District of New York issued two opinions in Laumann v. Nat’l Hockey League, No. 12-cv-1817, excluding plaintiffs’ damages expert under Daubert and denying plaintiffs’ motion to certify a damages...more
A recent Sixth Circuit decision clarified the minimum standard a plaintiff must meet to prove a claim of below-cost pricing under either the concerted or independent antitrust provisions of the Sherman Act. In Superior...more
In This Issue: News from the Bench: - Six Ways to Sunday: Recent Federal Circuit Opinion Highlights Uncertainty in the Patent Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Inventions - The Federal Circuit Affirms...more