Using Expert Witnesses in FCRA Cases - FCRA Focus
Chemical Engineering Expert Witness Experience & Discovery – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 48
Podcast: Science in the Courtroom
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 328: Listen and Learn -- Expert vs. Lay Witness Testimony (Evidence)
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
Episode 015: Confessions of a Business Appraiser: A Conversation with Chris Mercer
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
Be an Expert: Precedential PTAB Decision on Conclusory Expert TestimonyStutti TilwaA recent precedential decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may serve as a warning for those parties who plan on relying on...more
A recent precedential decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may serve as a warning for those parties who plan on relying on expert declarations in their inter partes reviews (“IPR”). On August 24, 2022, the...more
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
Experts play a key role in patent litigation as they explain complex technical issues including infringement, validity, and damages to judges and juries. The persuasiveness of their testimony can often mean the difference...more
Last month in Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Vidal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's determinations in six inter partes review proceedings that invalidated the challenged claims for being...more
In infringement suits, the patentee must show that each element of a patent claim is infringed either literally by an accused product or infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. Literal infringement means the accused...more
Imagine sitting in a conference room with your carefully crafted set of questions for a deposition, and you are exploring the basis for an opposing expert’s opinions. But instead of giving thoughtful answers, the expert...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held in a precedential opinion that expert witnesses must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Because Kyocera’s expert did not...more
In an appeal, Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., the issue of whether a patent provides sufficient written description of a negative limitation split the panel at the Federal Circuit. Novartis...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
As Lord Justice Arnold highlighted in one of his last judgments as a trial judge, the Patents Court “depends on the assistance it receives from expert witnesses”. ...more
As discussed in our previous post, one of the most critical tasks for Patent Owners during the Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) discovery period is deposing the Petitioner’s expert. Since IPR depositions are treated differently...more
Earlier this month, in Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc., Special Master Henry M. Sneath issued a Report and Recommendation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that a motion by...more
In intellectual property litigation, the outcome of many high stakes cases has turned on expert testimony. It is therefore important for a litigator to spend time and effort to properly identify, select, and prepare the...more
A 7-person jury in Waco, Texas, recently returned its verdict in the first patent trial held before Judge Albright: defense verdict, no finding of infringement. In the MV3 Partners v. Roku dispute, MV3 Partners had sought...more
As we demonstrated in our own successful appeal, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) may fail when an expert declaration lacks detailed explanation. An expert’s...more
Goodwin’s 337 Quarterly Insider remains the premiere publicly available source for keeping up to date on all meaningful decisions coming out of the Commission. Please find below Goodwin’s insights on the months of April, May,...more
HVLPO2, LLC v. OXYGEN FROG, LLC - Before Newman, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Summary: It is an abuse of discretion to permit a witness to testify...more
Addressing the scope of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) guidelines that prohibit lawyers from conferring with their witness during cross-examination, the PTAB designated as precedential a 2014 decision permitting lawyers...more
When parties jointly stipulate to witness statements rather than live direct and cross examination, one might expect the ITC to be receptive to their agreement—after all, such stipulations may save time and resources for...more
The PTAB panel in Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., Case IPR2014-00116 (PTAB July 21, 2014) (Paper 19), provided certain clarifications with regard to the ability to confer with witnesses during examination. This...more
In a recently issued order, ALJ Lord granted-in-part and denied-in-part Respondents’ motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of Complainants’ expert. Certain Radio Frequency Microneedle Dermatological Treatment Devices...more
Shortly before the evidentiary hearing, ALJ Lord granted Complainant’s motion in limine and excluded certain testimony in the witness statement of Respondents’ expert as precluded by her ground rules governing expert...more