Expert Testimony Excluded under Kyocera Where Party Failed to Establish its Expert Possessed the Necessary 'Advanced Training and Experience'

November 1, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the expert must at least meet the definition of a POSITA for the patents-in-suit. Absent that level of skill, Kyocera holds that the witness’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable or relevant enough to be relied on by a fact-finder.

Applying Kyocera, the court in Wave Neuroscience, Inc. v. Brain Frequency LLC excluded an expert witness’s testimony where the party failed to show that the expert was sufficiently skilled. The plaintiff, Wave Neuroscience, Inc. (“Wave”), sued Brain Frequency LLC (“Brain”) for infringement of a patented technology for treating neurological disorders. At the claim construction stage, the parties disagreed about the level of experience required to be a POSITA in this field. Brain proposed that a POSITA would have, among other things, “advanced training and experience” in either electroencephalogram (EEG) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) technology. Wave’s proposed POSITA, on the other hand, required training or experience in both EEG and TMS. 

The court determined that the patents at issue were focused on a TMS technique, which uses EEG results, but only as one part of the process. Thus, the court reasoned, EEG training and experience, by itself, could not qualify an expert to testify about TMS. Accordingly, the court agreed with Wave and found that a POSITA would have advanced training or experience in both EEG and TMS.

Under this definition, the court found that Brain failed to demonstrate that its expert had sufficient skill. Although Brain’s expert had a graduate degree in neuroscience and work experience in EEG, the Court determined that his TMS experience was lacking based on his curriculum vitae (CV). The only mention of TMS experience in the expert’s CV was a two-year research project in which the expert was the “primary investigator.” The court disregarded this work because there was no evidence that, as a primary investigator, the expert had a hands-on or technology-facing role where he could have received the required training or experience. Moreover, the defendant’s descriptions of the expert’s experience were too vague for the Court. There were no details about the scope of the expert’s TMS work, the TMS training the expert may have received as part of the study or even a copy of the publication associated with the project. Accordingly, the court would not “take the leap” in assuming the expert had the required experience and found that Brain failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that its expert was qualified to testify under Kyocera and Rule 702. 

Practice Tip: Following Kyocera, differences between an expert’s precise background and the defined level of skill in the art are no longer just fertile areas for cross examination, but grounds for exclusion. Accordingly, practitioners should either ensure that their proffered expert meets the POSITA definition proposed by both sides, or in cases where the level of skill is proposed after experts are selected, ensure that their expert provides detailed evidence beyond his or her CV to demonstrate that every aspect of the proposed definitions are met.

Wave Neuroscience, Inc. v. Brain Frequency LLC, No. SA-23-CV-00626-XR (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2024) (Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

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

© 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.