Attorneys Can Assist in Drafting Expert Reports, But Experts Must Substantially Participate

Aug 13, 2017

Reading Time : 1 min

Plaintiff Tech Pharmacy argued that the testimony of defendants’ expert should be excluded under Daubert because the expert’s report offered no independent analysis and simply parroted arguments from defendants’ Alice motion for summary judgment and from another expert’s report. Defendants noted that, while Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires that an expert report be “prepared and signed by the witness,” counsel is not precluded from providing assistance to experts in preparing their reports.

Addressing the permissible amount of attorney involvement in drafting an expert report, the court concluded that, “as long as the substance of the opinions is from the expert, the attorney’s involvement in the written expression of those opinions does not make them inadmissible.” However, the court cautioned that, while some attorney involvement in the preparation of an expert report is permissible, allowing an expert to sign a report drafted entirely by counsel without prior substantive input would read the word “prepared” completely out of the rule.

In this case, defendants’ expert testified that defense counsel drafted sections of his report, which the expert edited and with which he ultimately agreed. In total, five of the 43 paragraphs in the expert’s report contained duplicative language from defense counsel’s prior Alice briefing. The court held that, although five paragraphs of the report indicated that defense counsel helped the expert prepare the report, nothing indicated that defense counsel rather than the expert was responsible for the remaining content of the report.

Ultimately, Tech Pharmacy’s concerns regarding the extent of defense counsel’s influence on the expert’s report went to the weight of the expert’s testimony rather than its admissibility. Hence, vigorous cross-examination, the presentation of contrary evidence and a careful instruction on the burden of proof were held to be the appropriate vehicles to challenge the expert’s report.

Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa RX LLC et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-766 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 3, 2017)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.