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

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.