News & Analysis as of

Daubert Standards Expert Testimony Patent Litigation

Knobbe Martens

New Trial Granted Because “Nearly All” of the Defendant’s Noninfringement Evidence Was Untimely

Knobbe Martens on

The district court erred by admitting untimely expert testimony on noninfringement and by refusing to grant a new trial after the jury found noninfringement. Trudell Medical International (“Trudell”) sued D R Burton...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: An Expert Need Not Have Acquired the Requisite Skill Level Prior to the Time of the Invention

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

What Have We Learned From the First Six Months Under the New Federal Rule of Evidence 702?

As patent practitioners know, Daubert motions can be some of the most hotly contested and pivotal motions in the life of a patent case. These motions are used to exclude testimony from an opponent's expert witness, usually on...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Chilisin America Ltd. Nos. 2022-1873, (Fed. Cir. October 16, 2023)

This case is primarily about the Daubert standard as applied to expert testimony on damages. The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California’s admission of expert testimony on damages, which relied on...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - October 2023 #3

Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1873 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a California district court’s judgment as a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Expert Testimony Excluded Based on Inadmissible Evidence

McDermott Will & Emery on

Circuit Judge Bryson, sitting by designation in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, excluded a plaintiff’s damages expert opinion because the evidence relied upon by the expert was unreliable and therefore...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

PTAB Decides Parties' Motions in CRISPR Interference

Having heard oral argument at a hearing held on Monday, May 18th, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently entered its decision on these motions in Interference No 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Chief Judge Stark Denies Defendant’s Motion To Preclude Evidence Under Daubert

Fox Rothschild LLP on

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. et al. v. Power Integrations, Inc., C.A. No. 12-540-LPS (D.Del. October 25, 2018), the Court denied Power Integration’s Motion to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Fact-Intensive Reasonable Royalty Analysis Need Not Be Peer Reviewed or Published to Be Admissible - Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung...

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the admissibility of expert testimony on damages issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s admission of expert testimony based on a fact-intensive analysis that was not...more

Morris James LLP

Daubert And Dispositive Motions Are Decided

Morris James LLP on

Stark, C. J. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Defendants' Technical Expert Glenn Reinman is denied. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Proposed Testimony of Jeremiah Grant is denied in part and...more

10 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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide