On May 21, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed a $20 million damages award against Google LLC in a patent infringement dispute with EcoFactor, Inc. EcoFactor, Inc. v....more
On May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, highlighting the critical gatekeeping role of district courts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards,...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
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025) In its first en banc decision of the year, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s admission of expert testimony concerning damages,...more
Last week, in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit issued its first en banc decision in a utility patent case in several years. The case involves the gatekeeping function of district courts vis-à-vis expert...more
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. affirming the certification of a class of owners of elderly dogs, alleging that the...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
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
Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1873 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a California district court’s judgment as a...more
Loss of productivity damages are commonly estimated using a “measured mile” analysis, which compares unimpacted construction work to work which has been disrupted to determine the cost impact of the disruption. Such analyses...more
It is not uncommon for an opposing expert to opine that the existence of injury alone implies negligence, nor is it unusual to find that such opinions are supported only by general reliance on “literature” with no discernible...more
The Eleventh Circuit recently reinstated a case alleging a surgical tool caused internal burns during a hysterectomy surgery, holding that the district court erred in disqualifying an expert on the basis that he had never...more
The Court of Appeals stepped in for Hollywood last week to make sure Marylanders (or, at least, Maryland litigators) did not go the whole summer without a blockbuster. In Rochkind v. Stevenson II (“Stevenson II”), Judge...more
In the “Daubert trilogy,” Rule 702 spawned three children, all special in their own way. The firstborn, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), naturally receives most of the attention, being the pioneer....more
The Fourth District Court of Appeal recently issued a reminder that Daubert is the standard for all disputes regarding admissibility of expert testimony in Florida, and applies retroactively even where Frye was the standard...more
In In re: Accutane Litigation (A-4952-16T1) — an appeal decided just 10 days after oral argument — the New Jersey Appellate Division applied the New Jersey Supreme Court’s landmark decision In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J....more
The Aftermath of Marsh - When the Marsh case was decided in 2007 its broad interpretation of the “pure opinion exception” and narrow vision of the role of Frye took Florida expert evidence admissibility law well out of the...more
Is Maryland drifting toward Daubert? The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland seemed to confirm (or re-confirm) this as recently as in Sissoko v. State. ...more
On July 11, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of a case in which it is expected to finally decide, conclusively, whether Florida courts are to apply the Frye or Daubert standard to determine admissibility...more
Two recent federal cases highlight the challenges practitioners face in presenting expert claims handling testimony in bad faith litigation under the Daubert standard. In the first case, a court excluded such expert testimony...more
Manufacturers of products that contained chrysotile asbestos won a major victory in Crane Co. v. DeLisle on Sept. 14, 2016, when Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal (Fourth DCA) reversed a verdict entered against a...more
Most practitioners would agree that, if the court excludes an expert based on a Daubert challenge—and that is the only expert opining on a subject—then in most instances there should be no need to proffer the expert’s...more
The Third Circuit recently joined the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits in holding that, where a Daubert challenge is made to the use of expert testimony in support of class certification, the Daubert challenge must be...more
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court’s order certifying a class of direct purchasers of blood reagents in a price-fixing suit against Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Inc. In re...more