News & Analysis as of

Part 4 - Specific Preparation in Cross-Examining the Expert Witness

In the three earlier articles of this series, I discussed the reasons why you need to cross-examine an expert witness, the four main advantages a trial lawyer has over an expert witness, and the four stages of general...more

Judge Forrest authorizes depositions of declarants to support defendant’s motion for summary judgment

Following defendant Monster’s filing of a motion for summary judgment, the patentee provided declarations by two expert witnesses in opposition. Monster noticed depositions of these experts, but the patentee moved for a...more

5 Rules to Minimize Expert Contamination

Attorneys risk expert contamination when they provide information to an expert about a case. Although you need to discuss the case candidly and openly with your expert, you don’t want to contaminate the expert with...more

Defeating Indefiniteness Challenge with Petitioner’s Witness

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

The Four Main Advantages of Trial Lawyer against Expert Witness

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

Expert Testimony: Additional Insights from AU Optronics

Last month, we were excited to publish our article, The Use of Expert Witnesses for Penalty Determinations in Criminal Antitrust Cases: A Study of United States v. AU Optronics, in Antitrust Magazine. The article examines...more

Western District of Texas: An Expert Must Base a Determination of Bad Faith on the Facts Available to the Insurer When it Acted

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

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

Are Two (or More) Experts Better Than One?

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

Golden Bridge v. Apple: No Third Bite at the Apple as Damage Expert Excluded After Two Failed Reports and Where Trial Was Already...

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

Invalidity Expert Excluded Where Expert Failed to Conduct a Proper Written Description Analysis

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

Plaintiff Precluded from Using Deposition Testimony of Defense Expert Where Plaintiff Procured the Absence of the Expert

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

Compelling Testimony

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

Toxic Tort and Environmental Litigation: Court of Appeals Revisits and Clarifies Causation Requirements for Expert Opinions

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

Infringement Expert Excluded Where Expert Did Nothing More Than Parrot Claim Language in Infringement Analysis

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. At...more

En Banc Ninth Circuit Adds Teeth To Daubert Gatekeeping Obligation

On January 15, the en banc US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc. that significantly strengthened and expanded the gatekeeper role of both trial and appellate courts in...more

Don't Rely On Your Expert's Speculation To Save You From Summary Judgment

Just because an expert says something is so doesn't mean that it is. That's the lesson of Judge Gale's ruling last week in Carter v. Clements Walker. He rejected the evidentiary value of an expert's report stating that...more

Expert Testimony Recommending Vapor Intrusion Study is Insufficient Evidence of Health Effects, Does Not Trigger Need for EIR

After the Berkeley City Council (“City”) approved a mixed-use commercial and residential project on the site of a former car dealership and service garage, a community group sued, claiming that pre-existing contamination on...more

Filing Damage Expert's Reports Under Seal: Some Bright Line Rules

There are two trends increasing the costs of patent litigation. The first is the increased use of Daubert motions to exclude the opinion of opposing damage experts as unqualified or unreliable. The practical result...more

Taser Takes Down Expert in Patent Infringement Action Where Electrical Engineer Was Not Qualified to Offer Expert Opinions on...

Taser International, Inc. ("Taser') proceeded to trial on its patent infringement action against Karbon Arms, LLC ("Karbon Arms"). After expert reports and with the trial approaching, Taser filed a motion to exclude the...more

Threshold for Admissibility of Expert Opinion Affirmed by Pennsylvania Appellate Court

Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court recently affirmed an order granting summary judgment for Rohm and Haas (R&H) in a chemical exposure wrongful death action, finding the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion regarding...more

Kimberly-Clark v. First Quality: District Court Excludes Expert Testimony on Obviousness for Failure to Include the Opinion on...

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. ("Kimberly-Clark) filed a patent infringement action against First Quality Baby Products, LLC ("First Quality") over a variety of patents relating to disposable absorbent products, such as...more

Pennsylvania Continues Trend of Stricter Review of Experts in Product Liability and Toxic Tort Cases

For years, plaintiffs in product liability and toxic tort cases have viewed Pennsylvania's state court system as a favorable forum. Over the past year and a half, however, the Pennsylvania appellate courts have issued...more

Federal Circuit to Review Virginia Court's Decision Excluding Expert Report and Testimony Due to Failure to Apportion Royalty Base...

At the behest of Facebook, Inc., a defendant in a patent infringement case, a Virginia court excluded the report and testimony of a damages expert because the expert failed to apportion the revenue to the features causing the...more

Differentiating Between Junk Science and Admissible Expert Opinion in Pennsylvania

In environmental personal injury cases, proof of causation is key and that causation almost always hinges on expert opinion. A recent appellate decision in Pennsylvania in Snizavich v. Rohm and Haas Company provides useful...more

41 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2