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

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.