Federal Circuit Rejects Timing Requirement for Expert Qualification Under Kyocera

September 27, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the asserted patents in order to opine on infringement, among other issues. This new bright-line test and the underlying rationale, however, raised several new questions regarding expert admissibility. SeeFederal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert’s Testimony” and “Grappling With A Bright-Line Patent Expert Admissibility Test.” The Federal Circuit recently addressed one of those questions, namely whether an expert must have acquired the requisite level of skill as of the time of the invention or whether it is sufficient for an expert to acquire that knowledge at a later date.

This case involved technology related to orthopedic imaging systems. At the district court, the jury was instructed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering with 3 to 5 years working in a diagnostic imaging environment. While the patent owner’s expert met this definition at the time of trial, the defendant argued in its Rule 50(a) motion that the expert’s testimony should be disregarded because he did not acquire the requisite experience until nearly 10 years after the time of the invention. The jury ultimately returned a verdict of infringement. Following trial, the defendant renewed its argument regarding patent owner’s expert in its Rule 50(b) motion, which the district court denied.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the jury’s verdict could not be supported by the expert’s testimony because the expert was not a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. Because the patent owner’s expert did not become a person of ordinary skill until 8 to 10 years after the time of the invention, the defendant contended he was not qualified to offer expert testimony on issues such as infringement, which Kyocera held must be determined “from the vantage point” of an ordinarily skilled artisan.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding and rejected the defendant’s attempt to add a timing requirement to the minimum qualifications necessary to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill. Specifically, the Court clarified that Kyocera did not create or even consider a timing requirement. Instead, the proper question for expert qualification under Kyocera is whether the witness qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art “at any time.” While the timing of an expert’s qualifications may be relevant during cross examination to undermine the witness’s credibility, experts who acquire the requisite qualifications after the invention can nevertheless develop an understanding of what a person of ordinary skill knew at the time of the invention.

Practice Tip: While the Federal Circuit put forth a bright-line patent expert admissibility test in Kyocera, certain applications of the test initially remained unclear, including whether an expert needed to be a person of ordinary skill as of the date of the invention. With new clarification that experts can meet the requisite level of skill at any time, parties gain some additional confidence in navigating expert qualification post-Kyocera. Following the Federal Circuit’s guidance, attention should still be given to the timing of the expert’s acquired skill and how a subsequently skilled expert gained the perspective of a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, as such timing may nevertheless be used to both establish and undermine credibility. As the Federal Circuit notes, “an expert who later acquires the requisite knowledge could avoid such potential damage to her credibility by explaining to the judge and jury how she gained the perspective of a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention.”

Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., No. 2023-1627, 2024 WL 4031140 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 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.