News & Analysis as of

Evidence – Expert Witness Testimony – Grounds for Exclusion

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

Prohibiting Discovery of Attorney-Expert Communications

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

Appellate Court Notes - Week of December 13

AC34918 - Cuozzo v. Orange - AC34918 Dissent - Cuozzo v. Orange - This is a case where a little more effort should have gone into a Motion to Dismiss. The Appellate Court held that the Trial Court improperly...more

Appellate Notes: Week of February 18

In This Issue: - AC34039 - Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Calco Construction & Development Co. - AC33614 - Dorreman v. Johnson - AC34253 - Klemonski v. University of Connecticut Health Center ...more

The California Supreme Court Clarifies Trial Courts’ Gatekeeper Responsibility

Until recently, California trial courts were not required to perform the rigorous expert testimony gatekeeping responsibility adopted by federal courts and a majority of state courts. As a practical matter, California’s...more

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 2 | Issue 12 December 2012

In This Issue: • Indexing Not Required for Online Prior Art Publication • Claim Indefinite for Not Disclosing Any Structure • Aluminum Not Inherently Disclosed - Excerpt from Claim Indexing Not Required...more

6 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1