- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- within Cannabis & Hemp and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)
Topic:
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's admission of D R Burton Healthcare's expert testimony due to untimely disclosure and unreliability under the Federal Rules of Evidence 702. The Federal Circuit also reversed the district court's decision denying a new trial on infringement.
Background:
The case involves Trudell Medical International Inc. (Trudell) as the plaintiff-appellant and D R Burton Healthcare, LLC (D R Burton) as the defendant/counter-claimant-cross-appellant. The appeal is from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Before trial, the case was reassigned to Judge Terrance William Boyle.
Trudell owns U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588, which relates to devices for oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) therapy.
Trudell appealed the district court's decision to allow Dr. Collin's testimony and the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial on infringement of certain claims of the '558 patent. D R Burton cross-appealed the jury's verdict that the asserted claims were not invalid but withdrew the cross appeal.
Issue(s):
Did the district judge abuse its discretion by allowing Dr. Collin's testimony?
Holding(s):
Yes, D R Burton's disclosure of Dr. Collins' testimony was untimely. The district court did not explain how the untimely disclosure was substantially justified or harmless. The Federal Circuit also found Dr. Collin's testimony unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The case was remanded for a new trial, excluding Dr. Collins' non-infringement testimony, and reassigned to a different district court judge.
Reasoning:
The Federal Circuit's decision to reassign was influenced by the trial judge's statements, which undermined the appearance of fairness, similar to a previous Fourth Circuit case, Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Trudell's motion for JMOL of infringement, as the jury could have discredited Trudell's expert testimony.
The case is to be retried with existing evidence, excluding Dr. Collin's testimony, without reopening discovery.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
