Library Search
-
CAFC: Infringement Not Proven in Marketing Materials ( July 2007 )
Expert testimony based largely on the opponents' marketing and advertising materials provided no proof of infringement of stem-cell patents and should have been excluded from trial, a divided three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled June 9th. The stem-cell biologist's testimony – which consisted almost entirely of quotations from the defendants' promotional and investment materials – was neither appropriate for an expert, nor helpful to the jury, the court concluded in affirming the trial court's post-trial order striking the testimony. -
No Rule 26 Right to Daubert Costs ( June 2007 )
A federal discovery rule requiring an opposing party to pay expert-related fees and expenses does not apply to pretrial Daubert hearings, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C) allows a party to recover discovery costs relating to expert witnesses, the rule does not extend to the $64,000 in expenses these plaintiffs incurred in securing their expert's testimony at the Daubert hearing, the court said. -
Failure to Prepare Report Ruled 'Harmless' ( May 2007 )
In what appears to be a case of first impression, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that two experts were not barred from testifying by their failure to prepare or sign their own reports, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. -
In an Expert, Knowledge May Not Equal Power ( May 2007 )
Just because an expert strikes you as the brightest guy on the planet, that doesn't mean he is the best witness for your case, says Roderick B. Williams, an intellectual property partner with Vinson & Elkins in Austin, Texas. -
In an Expert, Passion Equals Credibility ( March 2007 )
Credibility is a key attribute in an expert witness, every trial lawyer would agree. But how do you gauge a potential expert's credibility? What attributes provide the best predictors of how the expert will measure up in the eyes of a jury? -
The Top Five Mistakes Expert Witnesses Make ( July 2005 )
An expert is a person with specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education which qualifies that person to form helpful opinions for a party in anticipation for litigation or preparation for trial. The court must find, however, in addition to the expert's qualifications, that the opinion evidence will be relevant to the issues in the case, that it is reliable, and that it will be helpful to the trier of fact. -
Listen To The Experts? Recent Appellate Rulings Affect Admissibility Of Medical-Expert Testimony ( June 2004 )
Complex civil cases, all too often, become the province of expert witnesses. Regardless of the issue, it is the rare case when counsel is unable to locate an expert who will support a given scientific proposition. And when they do, the expert inevitably will be able to explain, in cogent and dispassionate terms, why the side that retained him or her is in the right. -
Assisting the Court ( February 2000 )
In a post-Daubert world, courts considering the admissibility of expert testimony must become somewhat expert thems. -
Does Daubert Apply to None-Scientific Experts? ( October 1999 )
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,(1) the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Rule of Eviden. -
Supreme Court Watch -- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. V. Carmichael : Bolstering Safeguards against Non-Scientific Experts. ( August 1999 )
When the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U..
Page:
1
2
Ads by FindLaw