Discussion of Inventors’ Path in Expert’s Obviousness Opinion Warrants Partial Exclusion in Bench Trial

Jun 15, 2022

Reading Time : 2 min

The plaintiff in this case sought to exclude an expert’s obviousness opinion on several grounds, including failure to identify specific prior art combinations, mere conclusory statements on the motivation to combine, discussion of the inventors’ path and reliance on commercial motivations. While the district court rejected all but one of these grounds, noting that the threshold for precluding expert opinions is less critical in a bench trial setting, the district court agreed that the portion of the expert opinion that addressed the inventors’ path was inadmissible.

Specifically, the expert dedicated several pages in his report to discussing the plaintiff’s internal documents and deposition testimony of the inventors, which, according to the expert, demonstrated that the inventors followed a routine and obvious procedure to select a particular salt with expected properties. The expert then concluded that this path taken by the inventors in formulating the patented compound was obvious, which therefore provided further support for his own independent determination of obviousness.

Despite the expert’s clarification that his discussion of how the inventors arrived at the invention was not necessary for his obviousness determination, the district court nevertheless excluded this portion of the opinion. In doing so, the district court adhered to the Federal Circuit’s cautionary guidance against using the inventor’s path to render an invention obvious, as this would constitute hindsight, and therefore could never lead to a conclusion of obviousness. The district court further pointed to the defendant’s failure to show that the expert’s discussion of internal documents and inventor testimony described “routine testing”—which may be permissible under particular facts—and not an inventive “trial and error procedure” used to discover new compounds. By evaluating the obviousness of the invention through the eyes of the inventor, the district court found that the expert blurred the lines between the inventors’ work and the prior art, as well as between the level of ordinary skill in the art and the inventors’ potentially exceptional skill in the art. For this reason, the district court agreed to exclude those portions of the expert opinion from the bench trial.

Practice Tip: Even in the context of a bench trial, where the exclusion of expert testimony is less critical, experts should not exclusively rely on evidence of the inventive path taken by the inventors when making an obviousness determination. Because viewing the invention with the inventor’s own blueprint fails to properly evaluate the invention in the state of the art that existed at the time, courts are likely to view such evidence as impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, to the extent experts cite evidence of the steps the inventors took to arrive at the invention, they should also include additional, independent bases for obviousness, in the event the “inventors’ path” evidence is excluded.

Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al., 1:19-cv-02017 (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2022).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

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.