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

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.