District Court Precludes Experienced Patent Attorney from Testifying as Expert Based on Lack of Pertinent Technical Expertise

April 3, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

A district court recently precluded a patent attorney from testifying as an expert in a patent infringement lawsuit where the proposed expert lacked the requisite technical expertise to assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence.

The accused infringer in the case proffered an expert with a degree in mechanical engineering, a Juris Doctor, and an LLM in intellectual property law to opine on the materiality of allegedly undisclosed prior art, the validity of the asserted patent, and whether the accused system was “non-infringing prior art.” Although the expert possessed an engineering degree, the accused infringer conceded that the expert was not a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art (“POSITA”), namely paint inspection lighting technology. The patent owner moved to exclude the expert’s opinions based on a lack of technical expertise in lighting inspection systems.

In opposing the motion, the accused infringer argued that its expert would not be testifying from the perspective of someone skilled in the field, but would provide permissible testimony “from the perspective of a reasonable patent attorney.” Specifically, the expert would aid the factfinders in understanding the prosecution history of the patent, including the applicant’s claim amendments to overcome rejections and the disclosure of certain prior art. The court, however, disagreed with this characterization of the proffered testimony, finding that the expert report contained opinions regarding invalidity, the scope and content of prior art, and differences between the claims and the prior art.

Based on its review of the report, the court found that “practically all of [the expert’s] proposed testimony [was] impermissible.” The court relied primarily on the Federal Circuit’s 2008 Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. decision, which held that a witness may not testify as an expert on noninfringement or invalidity if he or she is not qualified as an expert in the art. The district court found that, despite a substantially impressive resume, the proposed expert was not a POSITA in the relevant field and, therefore, was not qualified to opine on invalidity and infringement.

Notably, the district court appears to have used “POSITA” to refer to the level of knowledge necessary to qualify as an expert in the pertinent art, as opposed to whether the expert met the specific, definitional criteria for a POSITA applied in the case. The court’s reliance on Sundance, as opposed the Federal Circuit’s more recent Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission establishing a bright-line rule based on meeting the POSITA definition, supports this interpretation.

Practice Tip:  For certain issues in a patent case, such as inequitable conduct during prosecution, it may be permissible for a patent attorney to testify as an expert from the perspective of a reasonable patent attorney. However, when proffering a patent attorney as an expert, parties should take care to avoid addressing any technical opinions on which the attorney is not an expert, such as scope of the art or claim interpretation. Crossing this line into technical matters risks exclusion of that testimony, which is particularly true in the wake of Kyocera, where the Federal Circuit has applied a stricter test to exclude patent experts that do not meet the definition of a POSITA.

Tecossl, Inc. v. Avid Labs, LLC, No. 5:19-cv-00043, D.I. 183 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 9, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.