Federal Circuit Orders New Trial After Questioning Expert Testimony

The Federal Circuit has mandated a new trial in a patent infringement case involving Trudell Medical International Inc. and D R Burton Healthcare, LLC. The court found that the district court improperly admitted expert testimony from Dr. Collins due to untimely disclosure and questioned its reliability under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. This ruling reverses the earlier decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

In this case, Trudell is the plaintiff-appellant, holding U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588, which pertains to devices for oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) therapy. Trudell challenged the district court’s decision that allowed Dr. Collins to testify, alongside a denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) regarding certain claims of the patent. Initially, D R Burton had cross-appealed, asserting that the jury’s verdict on the patent’s validity was incorrect but later withdrew this appeal.

The central question was whether the district judge had abused discretion by permitting Dr. Collins’ testimony. The Federal Circuit concluded that the testimony’s disclosure was indeed untimely. The district court failed to adequately justify the delay and did not demonstrate that it was harmless. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit deemed Dr. Collins’ testimony unreliable, emphasizing the need for rigorous scrutiny of expert evidence in patent cases.

Implications of the Ruling

The Federal Circuit’s decision also called for the case to be retried with existing evidence, while specifically excluding Dr. Collins’ non-infringement testimony. This aspect is significant as it sets a precedent for how expert testimony is evaluated in patent infringement cases. The case will be reassigned to a different district court judge, a decision influenced by statements made by the original trial judge that were seen as undermining the fairness of the proceedings. This mirrors earlier rulings, such as in the case of Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc..

The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of Trudell’s request for JMOL on the grounds of infringement, suggesting that the jury might have reasonably discredited Trudell’s expert testimony. As a result, the legal landscape surrounding patent infringement and expert testimony standards may shift as this case unfolds in the retrial.

This ruling underscores the importance of timely and reliable expert testimony in patent litigation. The outcome could have broader implications for how similar cases are approached in the future, particularly concerning the admissibility of expert evidence and the procedural requirements for its disclosure.