In patent litigation, expert witnesses play a crucial role in providing specialized knowledge to the court. In a recent case where Osseo Imaging LLC sued Planmeca USA Inc. for patent infringement, the Federal Circuit highlighted the importance of understanding expert witnesses' qualifications.
The court indicated that an expert witness in a patent case does not need to have acquired their expertise at the time of the invention but rather at the time of their testimony. The court rejected the argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art must have specific experience at the time of invention to qualify as an expert.
Furthermore, the court noted the significance of following proper procedural steps when challenging an expert witness's testimony. In this case, Planmeca's failure to seek a Daubert motion or appeal the denial of a motion to exclude the expert's testimony put them in an "unusual procedural posture."
It's essential to understand the criteria for expert witnesses in patent litigation to effectively present your case. Ensuring that an expert possesses ordinary skill in the art at the time of their testimony, rather than the time of invention, is a key takeaway from this ruling.
Opinion: Expert witnesses can make or break a case in patent litigation, so it's crucial to grasp the nuances of their qualifications and the procedural aspects involved in challenging their testimony.
While Planmeca’s counsel attempted during cross-examination to show that Osseo’s technical expert, Dr. Omid Kia, did not have 3-5 years of diagnostic imaging experience in 1999, the alleged date of invention, the CAFC noted that Planmeca “did not file a Daubert motion seeking to exclude Dr. Kia’s testimony because he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art. Nor did Planmeca appeal the denial of a motion to exclude Dr. Kia’s testimony or a denial of an objection to that testimony at trial.” ...The district court also rejected Planmeca’s argument about Osseo’s expert as “legally incorrect,”explaining that “[Planmeca] points to no legal support for the supposed requirement that an expert attain his or her expertise prior to a patent’...
ipwatchdog.com/...
