Showing results 1-10 of 83.

Cases that cite: Phillips v. AWH Corp.

  i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp. - Federal Circuit

Decided: 3/10/2010
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

To determine whether expert testimony was properly admitted under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, we use the framework set out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589-90, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).[2] ... While the data were certainly imperfect, and more (or different) data might have resulted in a "better" or more "accurate" estimate in the absolute sense, it is not the district court's role under Daubert to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying an expert's testimony.

Cited 70 times
Markup languages Sampling (statistics) Computer storage Technical communication Marketing 

  Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. - Federal Circuit

Decided: 12/24/2008
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. Hawk Measurement Sys. Pty. Ltd., 122 F.3d 1040, 1042 (Fed.Cir. 1997) ("Indeed, this court has on numerous occasions noted the impropriety of patent lawyers testifying as expert witnesses and giving their opinion regarding the proper interpretation of a claim as a matter of law, the ultimate issue for the court to decide."). ... Opposing the motion, DeMonte argued that Mr. Bliss was qualified because he "is a patent attorney with extensive experience in patent law and procedure," and that his testimony was admissible because courts may allow patent law experts to testify on "general procedures involved in the patent application process," citing Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., 79 F.Supp.2d 252, 254-55 (W.D.N.Y.2000).

Cited 64 times
Architectural elements Articulated vehicles Commercial item transport and distribution Scientific misconduct Publishing 

  Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. - Federal Circuit

Decided: 4/25/2014
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In Daubert, the Court addressed the proper standard for admitting expert testimony and emphasized that the focus "must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate." ... The district court held a Daubert hearing at which the experts testified and the parties presented oral arguments regarding admissibility.

Cited 50 times
Computing input devices Telecommunication theory Central processing unit Heuristics Mobile telecommunications 

  VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. - Federal Circuit

Decided: 9/16/2014
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

At trial, VirnetX's damages expert, Mr. Roy Weinstein, provided three reasonable royalty theories, which the district court admitted over Apple's challenges under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and the principles laid out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 47 times
Internet privacy Internet architecture Chemical kinetics Espionage techniques Transport Layer Security 

  Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc. - Federal Circuit

Decided: 12/4/2014
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

We conclude that the expert testimony about which D-Link complains violated neither the rule from Garretson regarding apportionment, nor the evidentiary principle demanding an appropriate balance between the probative value of admittedly relevant damages evidence and the prejudicial impact of such evidence caused by the potential to mislead the jury into awarding an unduly high royalty. ... In short, where expert testimony explains to the jury the need to discount reliance on a given license to account only for the value attributed to the licensed technology, as it did here, the mere fact that licenses predicated on the value of a multi-component product are referenced in that analysis—and the district court exercises its discretion not to exclude such evidence-is not reversible error.[4]

Cited 27 times
Wireless networking Data transmission Shipping Commercial item transport and distribution Assistive technology 

  Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor - Federal Circuit

Decided: 3/26/2013
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Such unreliable testimony frustrates a primary goal of expert testimony in any case, which is meant to place experience from professional specialization at the jury's disposal, not muddle the jury's fact-finding with unreliability and speculation. ... Where the intrinsic record is ambiguous, and when necessary, we have authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises."

Cited 25 times
Digital circuits Polytopes Analog circuits Elementary mathematics 

  SUMMIT 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. - Federal Circuit

Decided: 9/21/2015
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert, The Supreme Court has delineated certain factors to assist courts in evaluating the foundation of a given expert's testimony, while carefully emphasizing the non-exhaustive nature of these factors. Suggested considerations include whether the theory or technique the expert employs is generally accepted, whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether the theory can and has been tested, whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable, and whether there are standards controlling the technique's operation. ... The Fifth Circuit has held expert testimony admissible even though multiple Daubert factors were not satisfied.

Cited 23 times
Image processing Servers (computing) 

  MicroStrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, SA - Federal Circuit

Decided: 11/17/2005
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Confronted first with the initial expert report, the district court properly concluded that, despite the rather obvious role that MicroStrategy's financial instability played in the company's ongoing struggles, Yurkerwich attributed all of the company's post 2000 losses solely to the alleged tortious conduct by Business Objects. ... To the contrary, the district court has an obligation to weigh the admissibility of expert evidence under the Federal Rules. "[U]nder the [Federal] Rules [of Evidence] the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable."

Cited 17 times
Business models Computing output devices 

  Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 8/6/2007

The court accepted plaintiffs marketing expert's estimates of future sales and awarded plaintiff future lost profits due to lost sales for four years after the conclusion of the lawsuit because defendant's act permanently impaired future sales of Headchair and that the "sales momentum and business goodwill which flowed from [plaintiffs] successful first year has, to a great extent, been irreparably lost." ... The Supreme Court has identified a number of factors that may be relevant to the reliability of the testimony, including: (1) whether the theory or technique has been or will be tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the technique or theory has gained general acceptance in the relevant expert community.

Cited 15 times

  MarcTec, LLc v. Johnson & Johnson - Federal Circuit

Decided: 1/3/2012
District Court Decision: Excluded

Although we agree with MarcTec that exclusion of expert testimony under Daubert does not automatically trigger a finding of litigation misconduct, and in most cases likely would not do so, we find that the circumstances of this case were sufficiently egregious to support an award of attorney fees. ... In response, Cordis argues that the sums it expended on experts were only necessary because MarcTec "pressed forward after receiving documentary evidence that refuted its allegations, and because MarcTec had its experts proffer junk science, including a bogus theory about supposed temperature changes that were not capable of being detected and an unrealistic test having no relation to the accused product."

Cited 6 times
Implants (medicine) Interventional radiology Medical devices