Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 govern the admissibility of lay and expert opinion testimony, respectively, in federal courts. Rule 701(c) helps paint the line between the two, providing that an opinion “based on...more
US courts are issuing guidelines to ensure litigators disclose any use of generative AI in legal proceedings. By now, most of us have heard a story about the misuse of generative AI in the practice of law: the attorney...more
On November 15, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court released its decision on the much anticipated issue of whether Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) testimony is admissible under New Jersey Rule of Evidence 702. The Court...more
On April 17th, CVC filed its Reply to Broad's Opposition (filed on April 9th) to CVC's Miscellaneous Motion No. 2 to Exclude Evidence filed (on April 2nd), in Interference No 106,155 between Senior Party The Broad Institute,...more
In a recently issued order, ALJ Lord granted-in-part and denied-in-part Respondents’ motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of Complainants’ expert. Certain Radio Frequency Microneedle Dermatological Treatment Devices...more
In a recently issued pair of orders, ALJ Lord denied both Respondents’ and Complainants’ motions in limine to exclude certain expert testimony. Certain Radio Frequency Microneedle Dermatological Treatment Devices and...more
On October 15, 2018, in the matter of Richard Delisle vs. Crane Co., et al., the Supreme Court of Florida unequivocally reaffirmed that Frye remains the standard for the admission of expert testimony. This reaffirmation comes...more
Six years after the Wisconsin legislature amended Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1) to adopt the federal Daubert standard for admission of expert testimony, the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied the standard for the first time in a civil...more