Davis v. Capital One, N.A., No. 24-1507, 2025 WL 2445880 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2025). Background. Defendant made prerecorded calls to Plaintiff, a non-customer, attempting to reach a customer that had provided consent...more
In high-stakes personal injury litigation, a qualified vocational expert with proven experience can mean the difference between a credible damages narrative and one that falls apart under scrutiny. Join IMS on Thursday,...more
The use of expert testimony in litigation is often a minefield of questionable “expertise” and even more questionable methodology. What was originally intended to allow scientists, engineers and doctors to explain complex...more
In high-stakes litigation, expert testimony that cannot withstand a Daubert or Robinson challenge can derail even the most well-prepared case. A failed Daubert or Robinson challenge can leave attorneys without their key...more
In a mixed ruling on evidentiary exclusions and damages methodology, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a district court’s decision that excluded...more
We previously blogged about a decision in the In re Deepwater Horizon BELO litigation – Ruffin v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. – in which the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants in an alleged chemical...more
In Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the judgment in a patent infringement case involving three patents owned by Jiaxing Super...more
In EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a new trial on damages because EcoFactor’s expert’s opinion was unreliable under Fed....more
In response to the rapidly increasing presence of AI-generated outputs in litigation, on June 10, 2025, the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules approved for publication for public comment a...more
In an en banc decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from a damages expert that a lump-sum...more
In a significant decision for plaintiffs litigating traumatic brain injury (TBI) claims, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has denied a defense motion to exclude expert testimony based on diffusion...more
For anyone following the evolving admissibility standards for expert opinions relating to patent damages, the EcoFactor v. Google case is one to watch. In December 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for...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
February 11, 2025 Types : Alerts Meta Platforms, Inc. recently defeated certification of a class of consumers who claim the company lied about its user privacy safeguards and violated antitrust laws. ...more
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Isaac Indus v. PDVSA - personal jurisdiction, foreign sovereign immunity, breach of contract - USA v. Schwarzbaum - foreign bank accounts, IRS form FBAR, penalties, Excessive...more
In a toxic tort case, plaintiffs must establish general causation. If a substance is incapable of causing the type of injury plaintiff claims, then it certainly didn’t cause theirs. Under Texas law, toxic tort plaintiffs must...more
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires parties to disclose the opinions of experts who may present evidence at trial. If the disclosures are inadequate, Rule 37(c) requires exclusion of the opinions “unless the...more
Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 govern the admissibility of lay and expert opinion testimony, respectively, in federal courts. Rule 701(c) helps paint the line between the two, providing that an opinion “based on...more
In Cody v. City of St. Louis, 103 F.4th 523 (8th Cir. 2024), the Eight Circuit maintained its position that admissibility standards do not apply strictly at the class certification stage, thereby solidifying a circuit split...more
US courts are issuing guidelines to ensure litigators disclose any use of generative AI in legal proceedings. By now, most of us have heard a story about the misuse of generative AI in the practice of law: the attorney...more
As we reported in April, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question on California’s Learned Intermediary Doctrine in Himes v. Somatics, LLC, 2022 WL 989469 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022). The...more
In explaining the December 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Advisory Committee called out several ways in which “many courts” had “incorrectly” applied Rule 702 and failed to adequately discharge their...more
An expert witness is not supposed to pick a desired result and then reverse engineer inputs and methods that reach that result. As the Ninth Circuit observed 30 years ago, “[c]oming to a firm conclusion first and then doing...more
It is challenging for law enforcement to track down and trace illicit activities conducted through digital currencies. The process can be very time- and resource-intensive. Further, securing charges and arrests, and...more
The longer and more frequently a principle is repeated by the courts, the more difficult it can be for courts to acknowledge change. As illustrated by the First Circuit’s opinion in Rodriguez v. Hospital San Cristobal, Inc.,...more