Chemical Engineering Expert Witness Experience & Discovery – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 48
Podcast: Science in the Courtroom
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #15: Nick Tsui, Alston & Bird
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 159: Listen and Learn -- Evidence: Expert vs. Lay Witness Testimony
Podcast: What Witness Preparation Means
Podcast: Seven Witness Preparation Mistakes Lawyers Make
Podcast: Raise Your Right Hand, Miss Lillian
Jones Day Talks Intellectual Property: Blurrier Lines and Narrow Grounds—Implications of the Ninth Circuit’s Blurred Lines Decision
Episode 015: Confessions of a Business Appraiser: A Conversation with Chris Mercer
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Class Certification in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
Product liability claims require proof of causation. To be sure, they also require proof of some defect in the product and/or its accompanying warnings and product literature. But defect and causation are separate elements...more
There are few legal phrases more fun to say than “ipse dixit.” The phrase is most commonly used in motions to exclude experts who base their opinions on nothing more than their own say so...more
A plaintiff who alleges that a product is defective usually has to offer expert testimony in support of that allegation. This should come as no surprise for complex products – if it took a team of scientists and engineers to...more
ase In the wake of March Madness, it is only appropriate to call attention to an opinion laced with pithy basketball puns. In Nachimovsky v. Nike, Inc. et al., 2022 WL 943421 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2022), Plaintiff injured his...more
For over two decades, dating back to Daubert and the ensuing amendments to Rule 702, federal district courts have been charged to act “as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable expert testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory...more
In Kenney v. Watts Regulator Co, No. 20-2995, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4539 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2021), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether to exclude the plaintiff’s...more
In a decision reinforcing the importance of expert testimony in design defect and failure to warn cases, the Eastern District of New York recently dismissed claims against the makers of PAM cooking spray. In Urena v....more
Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update primarily concerning developments in product liability and related law from federal and state courts applicable to Massachusetts, but also featuring selected developments for New...more
Applying basic scientific principles to exclude an expert’s unfounded and unsupported opinions, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted summary judgment to the maker of the antipsychotic...more
Takeaway: Federal appellate courts review a district court’s rulings on motions for class certification and to exclude expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Grodzitsky v....more
Fall has descended upon us, along with that nip in the air and the aroma of pumpkin spice. All of these herald our latest edition of Pro Te: Solutio, which contains three fascinating articles on topics of current interest in...more
Harris Beach attorneys Judi Abbott Curry, Victoria A. Graffeo and Marina Plotkin prevailed on plaintiffs’ appeal to the Second Circuit of product liability failure to warn claims against Pioneer Surgical Technology, Inc. and...more
Snell & Wilmer attorneys Dan Rodman and Morgan Petrelli recently represented Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. in the trial of a 2006 Yamaha Rhino rollover lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada (Case No....more
To prepare the best product liability defense for pharmaceuticals and medical devices as well as anticipate and strategically plan for future challenges in the medical and life sciences legal world, it is often helpful to...more
Plaintiffs from California, New Jersey, and Florida claimed their 2002-2005 Ford Explorers, Mercury Mountaineers, and Lincoln Aviators suffered from a common design defect: the plastic appliqué just below the flip-glass on...more
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Failure-to-Warn Claim Against Drug Manufacturer Not Preempted Because There Was No “Clear Evidence” FDA Would Not Have Approved Plaintiffs’ Suggested Warning; Also Holds...more
In This Issue: ..Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Finally) Enforces Agreement for Individualized Arbitration of Unfair and Deceptive Practices Claims Following United States Supreme Court Decision Reversing...more