Follow the Rules … Most of the Time
Podcast - Part I: Being an Expert Is a Lonely Business
Podcast: Don't Just Say It – Show It
Podcast - Expert Witnesses, Special Issues
Podcast - Direct Examination of Expert Witnesses
Chemical Engineering Expert Witness Experience & Discovery – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 48
Podcast: Science in the Courtroom
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 159: Listen and Learn -- Evidence: Expert vs. Lay Witness Testimony
Podcast: What Witness Preparation Means
Podcast: Seven Witness Preparation Mistakes Lawyers Make
Podcast: Raise Your Right Hand, Miss Lillian
Jones Day Talks Intellectual Property: Blurrier Lines and Narrow Grounds—Implications of the Ninth Circuit’s Blurred Lines Decision
Episode 015: Confessions of a Business Appraiser: A Conversation with Chris Mercer
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Class Certification in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
On May 21, 2025, in an en banc decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated its earlier panel ruling and remanded the case of EcoFactor Inc. v. Google LLC for further proceedings. The court focused on...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 the first en banc decision for a utility patent case since 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a new trial on damages in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC and held that EcoFactor's damages expert's...more
On May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit “reverse[d] the district court’s denial of Google’s motion and remand[ed] for a new trial on damages.” The decision resulted in an 8-2 vote, with Judges Reyna and Stark dissenting. The...more
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) May 23, 2025). En banc opinion by Moore, joined by Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by...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
On May 21, in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc ruling in which the court remanded the case for a new trial on damages. In so doing, the Federal Circuit emphasized the role of the court in...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
On May 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, released its opinion in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google, LLC. In an 8-2 decision, the court reversed a $20 million jury verdict, holding that the...more
Admissibility standards for patent damages experts has come under scrutiny. Previously, we highlighted the EcoFactor v. Google case regarding Google’s petition for rehearing en banc to address the admissibility of EcoFactor’s...more
In Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corporation, the Federal Circuit addressed the boundaries a district court may impose on experts by deeming their testimony wrong as a matter of law. Background - Steuben Foods...more
Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC (“Mirror Worlds”) sued Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”)—formerly Facebook, Inc.—in the Southern District of New York for patent infringement. The lawsuit involved three patents related to storing,...more
Experts play a crucial role in patent cases. Experts opine on claim construction, infringement, invalidity and the proper amount of damages. And the exclusion of an expert witness can significantly impact the outcome of a...more
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
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
Parties involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings sometimes contemplate submitting experimental data to support their positions. Although such data can be useful, there also are risks. Several recent cases...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
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
Conflicting expert testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of a reverse doctrine of equivalents argument....more
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
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
On October 18, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., No. 2023-1435, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26340, (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2024) addressing the propriety of conducting claim construction at...more
“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). With that principle in mind, the PTAB recently denied institution...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court determination that a patent owner had not provided the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence under the...more