In a matter related to Case no. 1:13–cv-01358–PAC, Abbvie requested attorney and expert fees following the court’s determination that U.S. Patent No. 7,846,442 (“Methods of treating rheumatoid arthritis with an anti-TNF-alpha...more
In eBay Inc. v. Lockwood, CBM2014-00025, Paper 34, CBM2014-00026, Paper 35 (August 12, 2014) the Board denied eBay’s motion to expunge the declaration of its expert, directed to unpatenability of the prior art, which eBay...more
In the first part of this article series, I described the reasons that a trial attorney needs to cross-examine an expert witness.
Against the expert witness defending his home territory, the trial lawyer has four main...more
Most people do not think of auto accident or other personal injury cases as involving complex technical and scientific issues. However, even the simplest case can often benefit from the testimonial input of a scientific or...more
Throughout my years as a trial attorney, I have found that one of the most challenging aspects of trial is cross-examining an expert witness. I’ve written an article series describing my experience and the methods I’ve used...more
In Falcon v. State Farm Lloyds, the Western District of Texas reminded litigants that licensed public adjusters are not immune from expert witness qualification requirements. Namely, a public adjuster’s license does not...more
In a recent decision in the case of Pyramid Technologies, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 752 F.3d 807 (9th Cir., May 19, 2014), the 9th Circuit, relying on California law, upheld a grant of summary judgment dismissing...more
In a recent decision in the case of Pyramid Technologies, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 752 F.3d 807 (9th Cir., May 19, 2014), the Ninth Circuit, relying on California law upheld a grant of summary judgment dismissing...more
Falcon v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 1:12-CV-491-DAE, 2014 WL 2711849 (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2014) -
The Western District of Texas finds that a policyholder’s expert witness is not qualified to opine when he does not...more
City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corporation -
Court Of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Nos. 12-55147, 12-55193 (May 2, 2014) -
Under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 702, expert witness testimony must meet certain...more
Should you hire multiple experts on the same topic? There are some very good reasons to use this strategy.
If the case justifies the expense, retaining multiple consultants in the same field has a variety of advantages....more
Two weeks earlier, the court excluded the expert opinion and testimony of Plaintiff Golden Bridge Technology's ("GBT") damages expert. Nonetheless, the court gave GBT one week to submit a new report based on a new theory....more
Plaintiff Trading Technologies International, Inc. ("TT") moved to strike the invalidity expert report of the defendant, CQG. TT made two arguments its motion: " that Dr. Mellor failed to conduct a proper written description...more
Are communications between attorneys and their retained experts discoverable? For now, the answer appears to be no, as a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently affirmed a Superior Court decision “creat[ing] a...more
Eccentric inventors can be their own worst enemies at depositions and on the witness stand at trial. General Electric Co. v. Wilkins (Fed. Cir., May 8, 2014) is a recent case on point. The General Electric case involved a...more
In this edition, I think the most interesting case (of a number of interesting cases) is United States v. Garcia.
There, the government had an agent testify as an expert. The Fourth Circuit reversed, because the...more
Novartis sought to use the deposition testimony of defendant's expert at trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(4)(B). As explained by the district court, "the Rule provides that a party may use the deposition of a witness for any...more
On April 29, an evenly divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court resolved an issue of paramount importance to Pennsylvania litigants: whether communications between an attorney and a testifying expert are protected from discovery by...more
The Amendments to Rule 26 -
In 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 was amended to provide new limitations on the discovery allowed for testifying experts in federal court cases. The most significant changes with...more
In GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., (IPR2014-00041), Paper 22 (IPR2014-00043), Paper 23, (IPR2014-00051), Paper 21 (IPR2014-00054), Paper 18 (IPR2014-00055), Paper 14 (April 15, 2014), the patent owner...more
Causation is the crux of any toxic tort litigation. The Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC, No. 16 (N.Y. Mar. 27, 2014) underscores that principle and revisits the causation...more
Individuals who sustain injury because of medical negligence naturally face challenges because of the technical nature of their cases. First, local medical practitioners are reluctant to testify against others in their field....more
In 2011, I changed my practice dramatically. I became a partner in a personal injury law firm. My prior legal experience consisted primarily of family law cases with some criminal law cases sprinkled in here and there. I...more
Plantronics, Inc. ("Plantronics") filed a patent infringement action against ALIPH, Inc. ("ALIPH"). After expert reports were submitted, ALIPH moved to exclude the expert report of Plantronics' infringement expert.
It is trite law that appellate courts are to give significant deference to trial judges’ assessments of damages, particularly when tied to questions of facts. But how much deference? The Ontario Court of Appeal’s February 12,...more
Back to Top