Expert Witness Appeals

News & Analysis as of

What Exactly Was Excluded? Proffering Expert Opinions to Preserve Daubert/Frye Challenges

Most practitioners would agree that, if the court excludes an expert based on a Daubert challenge—and that is the only expert opining on a subject—then in most instances there should be no need to proffer the expert’s...more

No Special Rules Regarding Consideration of Expert Declarations in IPR Proceedings - In re International Business Machines Corp.

In a non-precedential opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined to direct the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to create a particularized written standard for consideration of inter partes...more

The 4th District Adheres To Rule Limiting Discovery Of Expert Witness’s Earnings And Financial Information

The Fourth District adheres to Rule 1.280(b)(5)’s discovery limitations with regard to a witness’s earnings as an expert witness or income derived from other services in the absence of “the most unusual or compelling...more

Westerhoff and McCallum: More from the OCA on Expert Evidence

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision last week in Westerhof v. Gee Estate and McCallum v. Baker (2015 ONCA 206), which are the companion cases to Moore v. Getahun.  All three appeals were heard together....more

Moore v. Getahun: Expert Witnesses

On January 29, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its widely-anticipated reasons in Moore v. Getahun (2015 ONCA 55). In the lower court’s controversial decision released last year, the court criticized the practice of...more

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

11 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×