Showing results 1-2 of 2.

  Phillips v. AWH Corp. - Federal Circuit

Decided: 7/12/2005

We have also held that extrinsic evidence in the form of expert testimony can be useful to a court for a variety of purposes, such as to provide background on the technology at issue, to explain how an invention works, to ensure that the court's understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or to establish that a particular term in the patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in the pertinent field. ... During so called Markman "hearings," which are often longer than jury trials, parties battle over experts offering conflicting evidence regarding who qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art; the meaning of patent terms to that person; the state of the art at the time of the invention;

Cited 84 times
Angle Thermal protection Heat transfer Lexicography Applied linguistics 

  US v. Graham - 4th Circuit

Decided: 8/5/2015
District Court Decision: Admitted, Excluded In Part
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Appellants appeal the district court's admission of certain testimony of Jeff Strohm, records custodian for Sprint/Nextel, and Special Agent Colin Simons of the FBI, arguing that portions constitute expert testimony in the guise of lay opinion. ... Similarly, Strohm's testimony that factors including proximity, line of sight, and 365*365 call traffic may affect a phone's ability to connect to a particular cell tower did not rise to the level of an expert opinion.

Cited 2 times
Mobile telecommunications Telecommunications infrastructure Mobile phones Radio technology Public utilities