Expert Evidence Not Always Necessary to Resolve Questions of Patent Infringement
In Kyocera Wireless Co. v. President Elec., LTD, Plaintiff appealed a lower court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of a design patent for a "portable cellular handset telephone." Plaintiff argued that summary judgment was improper without expert testimony; however, the Federal Circuit disagreed, stating:
The record does not reflect that any of the parties sought to introduce expert evidence, and expert evidence is not always necessary to resolve questions of patent infringement. See, e.g., Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1984). While expert evidence may be necessary in cases involving complex technology, see Centricut, LLC v. Esab Group, Inc., 390 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004), this is not such a case, and [Defendant] does not explain how expert evidence would have been helpful. Because we find no error in the district court's disposition of this case, we affirm the judgment below.
Kyocera Wireless Co. v. President Elec., LTD, No. 06-1131 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2006) (unpublished opinion).
The record does not reflect that any of the parties sought to introduce expert evidence, and expert evidence is not always necessary to resolve questions of patent infringement. See, e.g., Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1984). While expert evidence may be necessary in cases involving complex technology, see Centricut, LLC v. Esab Group, Inc., 390 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004), this is not such a case, and [Defendant] does not explain how expert evidence would have been helpful. Because we find no error in the district court's disposition of this case, we affirm the judgment below.
Kyocera Wireless Co. v. President Elec., LTD, No. 06-1131 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2006) (unpublished opinion).
Neither the content on this blog nor any transmissions between you and Sheppard Mullin through this blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.
In communicating with us through this blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers.
By choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval, you understand and agree that Sheppard Mullin will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.
In communicating with us through this blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers.
By choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval, you understand and agree that Sheppard Mullin will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.
Post A Comment / Question