Chemical Engineering Expert Witness Experience & Discovery – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 48
Podcast: Science in the Courtroom
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #15: Nick Tsui, Alston & Bird
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 159: Listen and Learn -- Evidence: Expert vs. Lay Witness Testimony
Podcast: What Witness Preparation Means
Podcast: Seven Witness Preparation Mistakes Lawyers Make
Podcast: Raise Your Right Hand, Miss Lillian
Jones Day Talks Intellectual Property: Blurrier Lines and Narrow Grounds—Implications of the Ninth Circuit’s Blurred Lines Decision
Episode 015: Confessions of a Business Appraiser: A Conversation with Chris Mercer
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Class Certification in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that disclosure in the prior art of all recited claim elements across multiple references, without more,...more
Loss of productivity damages are commonly estimated using a “measured mile” analysis, which compares unimpacted construction work to work which has been disrupted to determine the cost impact of the disruption. Such analyses...more
In a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit, Auris Health, Inc. v Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Case 2021-1732, the panel split on the weight of general industry skepticism in an obviousness analysis and split on...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
It is not uncommon for an opposing expert to opine that the existence of injury alone implies negligence, nor is it unusual to find that such opinions are supported only by general reliance on “literature” with no discernible...more
In a recent decision touching on many interesting issues, North Carolina’s Court of Appeals effectively determined that, in all but the most obvious cases, expert testimony is required to establish a failure to perform...more
In the “Daubert trilogy,” Rule 702 spawned three children, all special in their own way. The firstborn, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), naturally receives most of the attention, being the pioneer....more
The Fourth District Court of Appeal recently issued a reminder that Daubert is the standard for all disputes regarding admissibility of expert testimony in Florida, and applies retroactively even where Frye was the standard...more
HVLPO2, LLC v. OXYGEN FROG, LLC - Before Newman, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Summary: It is an abuse of discretion to permit a witness to testify...more
In In re: Accutane Litigation (A-4952-16T1) — an appeal decided just 10 days after oral argument — the New Jersey Appellate Division applied the New Jersey Supreme Court’s landmark decision In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J....more
In the spirit of the upcoming Super Bowl, it is important to keep in mind certain rules of play regarding forfeiture of arguments in federal courts of appeals. The Tenth Circuit reiterated two such rules in recent opinions....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding regarding motivation to combine based only on conclusory expert testimony was not supported by substantial...more
In a recent precedential decision, TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a pair of USPTO inter partes review proceedings that invalidated all claims of two related U.S. patents because “the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial on damages, finding that the jury verdict on damages was based on...more
The Aftermath of Marsh - When the Marsh case was decided in 2007 its broad interpretation of the “pure opinion exception” and narrow vision of the role of Frye took Florida expert evidence admissibility law well out of the...more
In re 3M Bair Hugger Litig., 2019 Minn. App. LEXIS 11, the Minnesota Court of Appeals analyzed the applicable standard for determining whether or not expert opinion testimony based on a novel scientific theory is admissible....more
In This Issue - US Taxation of IP After Tax Reform - U.S. taxation of intellectual property has become astoundingly more complex after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The new rules are so complex that the IRS and Treasury...more
In Durkin v. MTown Construction, LLC, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee considered whether the lower court properly took judicial notice of an alternative measure of damages to the measure of...more
When does inspiration turn into copyright infringement? The line is getting blurrier. Jones Day’s Meredith Wilkes, Anna Raimer, and Aryane Garansi explain how the Ninth Circuit’s decision—on “narrow grounds”—in the Blurred...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision declaring various claims of patent owner Thales’ U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (“the ‘159 patent”) nonobvious. In doing so, the Federal...more
On July 11, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of a case in which it is expected to finally decide, conclusively, whether Florida courts are to apply the Frye or Daubert standard to determine admissibility...more
In David v. Hernandez, 2017 No. B270133, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, upheld the trial court’s evidentiary rulings on two distinct expert opinions: (1) speculative testimony regarding plaintiff’s marijuana...more
A recent holding of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland is of significance to companies defending personal injury lawsuits—particularly those where the nature or extent of a plaintiff’s alleged injuries is in dispute. In...more
Two recent federal cases highlight the challenges practitioners face in presenting expert claims handling testimony in bad faith litigation under the Daubert standard. In the first case, a court excluded such expert testimony...more
A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone. In a decision providing...more