Federal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert’s Testimony

Mar 9, 2022

Reading Time : 2 min

In this case, Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. brought a complaint against Koki Holdings America Ltd. for infringement of several patents related to Koki’s importation of gas spring nailers in the International Trade Commission (ITC). The claims of the asserted patents were generally directed to fastener driving tools and methods for controlling fastener driving tools. To support its case, Kyocera offered testimony from an engineering expert, Dr. John Pratt. Dr. Pratt had advanced degrees in engineering and vast experience in the design and manufacture of fastener driving tools, but no experience specifically in designing power nailers.

During claim construction, Koki proposed a definition of a skilled artisan that required, among other things, at least two years of experience in power nailer design. Kyocera did not contest the definition, or object after it was adopted by the administrative law judge (ALJ). Relying on this definition, Koki moved to exclude Dr. Pratt’s testimony on the basis that he did not qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art because he lacked the required experience in power nailer design. The ALJ agreed, but only excluded Dr. Pratt from testify regarding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The ALJ permitted Dr. Pratt to testify as to literal infringement.

Both parties challenged the ALJ’s partial exclusion on appeal. Kyocera argued that Dr. Pratt should have been allowed to testify on both infringement issues, while Koki argued that Dr. Pratt should have never been allowed to testify at all.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Koki, and held that an expert must, at a minimum, possess ordinary skill in the art to offer testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan, including on issues of claim construction, invalidity and infringement. Regarding literal infringement, the Federal Circuit explained that while proof of literal infringement does not always require testimony from an expert, an expert must possess at least ordinary skill in the art when such testimony is offered. That is, it makes no difference whether the expert is testifying about literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents—the minimum qualifications to testify remain the same. The court further explained that its finding in this case did not contradict prior decisions holding that an expert may qualify as having a higher level of skill in the art, i.e., exceptional skill in the art.

Because Dr. Pratt’s experience failed to meet the definition of ordinary skill in the art, the Federal Circuit held that his proffered testimony on both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was neither relevant nor reliable.

Practice Tip: Here, testimony from an expert who appeared to possess exceptional experience in a general field of study was excluded based on a relatively narrow definition of the level of skill in the art. This case should serve as a reminder to all parties to carefully consider both the qualifications of their experts and the potential implications of narrowly defining the level of skill in the art early in litigation, and to preserve objections when an expert’s qualifications and the level of skill may not align.

Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

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

© 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.