Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 govern the admissibility of lay and expert opinion testimony, respectively, in federal courts. Rule 701(c) helps paint the line between the two, providing that an opinion “based on...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more
In patent litigation, expert witnesses play a crucial role in providing specialized knowledge to the court. In a recent case where Osseo Imaging LLC sued Planmeca USA Inc. for patent infringement, the Federal Circuit...more
Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1755, 2024-2221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit weighed in again on a 13-year-old patent dispute concerning Qualcomm’s...more
New Amendment Reiterates and Reinforces the Existing Standard for Admissibility of Expert Testimony - On December 1, 2023, the United States Supreme Court adopted the Rules Committee’s proposed Amendment to the Federal...more
Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division - In this asbestos action, defendants Atwood & Morrill Co. Inc. and Warren Pumps LLC filed a Daubert motion to exclude, or limit, certain...more
When scientific evidence is in play, it is often assumed that the most frequently cited articles are published in the most elite journals. However, this is not necessarily true. A journal is ranked according to its impact...more
As patent practitioners know, Daubert motions can be some of the most hotly contested and pivotal motions in the life of a patent case. These motions are used to exclude testimony from an opponent's expert witness, usually on...more
In Cody v. City of St. Louis, 103 F.4th 523 (8th Cir. 2024), the Eight Circuit maintained its position that admissibility standards do not apply strictly at the class certification stage, thereby solidifying a circuit split...more
In December 2023, back when the ink was still drying on the amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Southern District of New York excluded all five general causation experts proffered by plaintiffs in the In re...more
US courts are issuing guidelines to ensure litigators disclose any use of generative AI in legal proceedings. By now, most of us have heard a story about the misuse of generative AI in the practice of law: the attorney...more
As we reported in April, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question on California’s Learned Intermediary Doctrine in Himes v. Somatics, LLC, 2022 WL 989469 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022). The...more
A recent decision by Judge Novak in a securities case provides some helpful reminders on expert witness practice, particularly in commercial litigation, in the EDVA....more
When tasked with assessing the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, courts often cite the so-called Daubert factors as criteria that guide the inquiry. Among those factors is “whether the...more
In explaining the December 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Advisory Committee called out several ways in which “many courts” had “incorrectly” applied Rule 702 and failed to adequately discharge their...more
A recent decision by Senior District Judge Robert Payne on a Daubert motion in class action litigation against a pension fund offers some helpful lessons on challenging expert witnesses in the EDVA. Trauernicht v. Genworth...more
The Roundup covers notable class action decisions each month from federal appellate courts, as well as notable Supreme Court class action cert petitions....more
Runaway verdicts against large corporations are on the rise. Recently, ExxonMobil was hit with a $725 million verdict in a single-plaintiff case when the jury found that the company failed to warn consumers about the...more
In December of 2023, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended. This provision is commonly known as the Daubert standard. The Advisory Comments state the amendment is only intended to clarify the standard and promote...more
An expert witness is not supposed to pick a desired result and then reverse engineer inputs and methods that reach that result. As the Ninth Circuit observed 30 years ago, “[c]oming to a firm conclusion first and then doing...more
Product liability claims require proof of causation. To be sure, they also require proof of some defect in the product and/or its accompanying warnings and product literature. But defect and causation are separate elements...more
It is challenging for law enforcement to track down and trace illicit activities conducted through digital currencies. The process can be very time- and resource-intensive. Further, securing charges and arrests, and...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
Expert testimony is the tool that enables litigators to elucidate concepts that require scientific, technical or specialized knowledge. However, a proponent cannot introduce expert testimony without demonstrating under F.R.E....more
On December 1, 2023, amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702 geared toward emphasizing and explaining the responsibility of the judge as a “gatekeeper” for expert testimony took effect. On December 18, 2023, one of...more