Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In September 2024, the Federal Circuit clarified the necessary qualifications for a technical expert to testify in a patent lawsuit, holding that while an expert must possess ordinary skill in the art, they need not have possessed such skill "at the time of the alleged invention." Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc. 2024 WL 4031140, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2024).
Expert witnesses play a critical role in patent litigation, where judges and juries without technical training are expected to adjudicate often highly technical issues related to the patented invention, the accused products, and the state of the art in the relevant industry at the time of the invention. But without the right specialized knowledge, training, or experience, a witness may not qualify as an expert and his/her opinions will not be helpful. Many issues in a patent lawsuit — including claim construction, infringement, and validity — require assessing evidence from the perspective of a hypothetical "person of ordinary skill in the art." Thus, to be qualified to offer technical expert testimony in a patent case, "an expert must at a minimum possess ordinary skill in the art." Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 22 F. 4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.