Podcast - Expert Witnesses, Special Issues
Podcast - Direct Examination of Expert Witnesses
Chemical Engineering Expert Witness Experience & Discovery – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 48
Podcast: Science in the Courtroom
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
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a list of FAQs related to the new bifurcated process for discretionary denial established in the March 26 memorandum issued by Acting Director Stewart. The FAQs...more
SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC v. STEWART [OPINION] - Before Reyna, Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board did not abuse its discretion by relying on...more
It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...more
Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC (“Mirror Worlds”) sued Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”)—formerly Facebook, Inc.—in the Southern District of New York for patent infringement. The lawsuit involved three patents related to storing,...more
Over the last several years, the Federal Circuit has increasingly scrutinized patent litigants’ reliance on “comparable licenses” as a means for calculating a reasonable royalty, including whether the license needs to be...more
Experts play a crucial role in patent cases. Experts opine on claim construction, infringement, invalidity and the proper amount of damages. And the exclusion of an expert witness can significantly impact the outcome of a...more
Following the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) decision to rescind the Fintiv Memo on Feb. 28, 2025, the result was that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) would have greater flexibility in exercising its...more
Addressing the issues of claim construction and the requisite expert qualifications to testify on obviousness and anticipation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed in part, reversed in part and...more
Expert testimony plays a critical role in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Thousands of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review have been...more
On February 12, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied defendant Parse Biosciences’s (“Parse”) motions for summary judgment that: (i) Parse had never actually conducted any direct or...more
Parties involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings sometimes contemplate submitting experimental data to support their positions. Although such data can be useful, there also are risks. Several recent cases...more
The Federal Circuit rarely decides cases en banc. For example, in 2024, the Court only heard one en banc case. Stunningly, on September 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for rehearing en banc in the case...more
2024 brought exciting developments at the Federal Circuit. The court issued its first en banc decision in a patent case in five years in LKQ, which significantly altered the standard for proving obviousness of a design...more
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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to admit expert testimony and remanded the case to a different judge, noting that “from the moment this case fell in his lap, the trial...more
Abuse of Process and/or Sanctions – 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 - Spectrum Solutions LLC v. Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, LLC, IPR2021-00847, IPR2021-00850, IPR2021-00854, IPR2021-00857 & IPR2021-00860 - Decision...more
Conflicting expert testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of a reverse doctrine of equivalents argument....more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, a case that focuses on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, claim breadth and the...more
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp., No. 23-1790 (Fed. Cir. 2025) - On January 24, 2025, the Federal Circuit considered the “long mentioned but rarely applied” reverse doctrine of equivalents (“RDOE”) defense. ...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the “substantially the same way” comparison in connection with a doctrine of equivalents (DOE) analysis involving a means-plus-function claim limitation should focus...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to delivery of targeted television advertisements. The board rejected patent owner’s argument that a lack of particularity as...more
Kilpatrick partners John Alemanni and Justin Krieger recently presented a CLE addressing “Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal).”...more
On October 18, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., No. 2023-1435, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26340, (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2024) addressing the propriety of conducting claim construction at...more
“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). With that principle in mind, the PTAB recently denied institution...more