News & Analysis as of

Patents Evidence Expert Testimony

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: The Federal Circuit Remands and Reassigns District Court Patent Infringement Case to a New Judge

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

A&O Shearman

Poster Presentation Tied To Business Objectives Serves As Evidence Of Infringement Of Patented Methods

A&O Shearman on

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

Baker Botts L.L.P.

The Federal Circuit Tackles the Role of Expert Opinions in Patent Damages in EcoFactor Inc. v. Google, LLC

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Judicial Bias and Erroneous Admission of Expert Testimony Prompt Case Reassignment

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Irwin IP LLP

Federal Circuit Opts Not to Play its REVERSE [DOE] Card 

Irwin IP LLP on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Bottling the Truth: Equivalence and Reverse Equivalence

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Kilpatrick

5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)

Kilpatrick on

Kilpatrick partners John Alemanni and Justin Krieger recently presented a CLE addressing “Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal).”...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Is Evidence of All Claimed Elements in Prior Art Enough? Not Without Motivation to Combine

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that disclosure in the prior art of all recited claim elements across multiple references, without more,...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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter - May 2023: Kyocera and the Brewing Debate Over Expert Qualifications at the PTAB

Technical experts play a key role in patent litigation, including in PTAB litigation. Indeed, experts are often the only witnesses to provide testimony in PTAB proceedings, and final written decisions often hinge on which...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

Knobbe Martens

Expert Testimony That Contradicts Patent Specification Fails to Create a Genuine Issue of Fact in a Patent Eligibility Dispute

Knobbe Martens on

CAREDX, INC. V. NATERA, INC. Before Lourie, Bryson, and Hughes - Summary: Expert testimony that steps of challenged patent claims were unconventional failed to preclude summary judgment of ineligibility where...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter: May 2022: Split Panel Weighs General Skepticism Differently in Obviousness Inquiry

In a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit, Auris Health, Inc. v Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Case 2021-1732, the panel split on the weight of general industry skepticism in an obviousness analysis and split on...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter: May 2022

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Expert Bad Behavior: The Problem and Potential Solutions

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Editors' Introduction

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 patent litigation. In its first...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[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

Jones Day

Motion to Exclude Improper Vehicle For Addressing Non-Responsive Evidence

Jones Day on

In Apple, Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc. (IPR2020-00686), the PTAB denied the Patent Owner’s motion to exclude portions of the Petitioner’s supplemental expert declaration. Here the Patent Owner sought to exclude a number of...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (September 13-17): More Forays Into Expert Testimony and Damages

We’re still waiting (and probably will be for a little while) for the first opinion from newly confirmed Judge Tiffany Cunningham. But in the meantime, we provide below our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

CVC Opposes Broad's Motion to Exclude Evidence and Broad Files Reply

Late last month, Junior Party University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (hereinafter, "CVC") and Senior Party The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and...more

A&O Shearman

Expert Evidence in patent cases: recent guidance from the Bench

A&O Shearman on

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Patent Owner Tip #2 for Surviving An Instituted IPR: Don’t Swing for the Fences in IPR Depositions

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

Smart & Biggar

Effectively using experts in IP Litigation – Part 2: Practise

Smart & Biggar on

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

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

Insights Into the First Patent Trial in Waco, Texas - MV3 Partners v. Roku

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

Goodwin

ITC 337 Quarterly Insider Q2 2020

Goodwin on

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

49 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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