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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 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
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 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
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
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
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
Challenging two patents with a common parent application, Butamax Advanced Biofuels was able to get 28 challenged claims of one Gevo patent and 18 challenged claims of a second into separate trials for inter partes review, in...more
In This Issue:
..Quinn Emanuel’s London Office Continues Expansion with Addition of Leading Litigator Ted Greeno
..Jennifer Kash and Diane Doolittle Named Top Women Leaders in Technology Law...more
What is the likely effect of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (“USC”), 55 Cal. 4th 747 (2012), on the admissibility of expert testimony in California?...more
Back to Top