In the latest installment of their Law360 series on recent noteworthy Federal Circuit decisions, Knobbe Martens partners Jeremiah Helm and Sean Murray cover the court’s ruling in Barry v. DePuy Syntheses Cos.
The case, which related to spinal surgical techniques, offers important guidance on “whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court’s claim construction,” Helm and Murray write.
The authors trace the history of the dispute, focusing on DePuy’s filing of a Daubert motion to exclude testimony from plaintiff Dr. Mark Barry’s expert witness. While the district court granted this motion, the Federal Circuit reversed the ruling on appeal.
Helm and Murray provide several takeaways for patent practitioners based on the Federal Circuit’s opinion: (1) expert testimony should consistently refer to the court’s claim construction; (2) expert testimony is less likely to be excluded if the party seeking exclusion does not make any objections until after the fact; and (3) parties seeking to exclude expert testimony must demonstrate a clear, direct conflict between the testimony and the court’s claim construction.
Read the full article here.
Subscribe for News and Updates
