Testimony Of Expert Under Daubert And FRE 702 Upheld

The defendants objected to the testimony of Micro Chemical's expert, Edward Fiorito, arguing, among other things, that he based his opinion on inaccurate facts and relied on the statements of others and did not undertake an independent investigation of the feedlot industry or personally review the parties' financial records. The Federal Circuit upheld the District Court's decision to allow the expert testimony, explaining that under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence a trial court is required to ensure that expert testimony must be based on 'sufficient facts or data,' but that Rule 702 does not authorize a trial court to exclude an expert's testimony because it believes one set of facts or the other. The Federal Circuit also cautioned that the trial court's role of gatekeeper described in Daubert is 'not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system.'

Bottom Line: The Federal Circuit views the trial court's 'gatekeeper' under FRE 702 and Daubert to be one of determining the sufficiency of facts or data and not as finder of fact.

The Federal Circuit ruled that a district court properly performed the 'gatekeeping' role required of it by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence when it allowed the testimony of plaintiff's damages expert. Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Lextron, Inc. (Fed. Cir., Jan. 24, 2003). The plaintiff, Micro Chemical, alleged that defendants Lextron and Turnkey Computer Systems, Inc. infringed Micro Chemical's U.S. Patent No. 5,315,505 for a computerized medical records system for tracking health histories and medical treatments of livestock.