Amended Federal Rule 702: Ensuring Reliable Expert Testimony
The amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which took effect on December 1, 2023, have profound impacts on the admissibility of expert witnesses. Patent litigation lawyers must understand these changes to successfully leverage expert testimony in their cases.
Burden of Proof: The party offering expert testimony must now establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the expert's opinion satisfies the criteria outlined in Rule 702(a), (b), and (c). This means that the responsibility for proving the admissibility of the expert's testimony has shifted from the court to the proponent.
Gatekeeping Responsibility: The amendments reinforce the court's obligation to serve as a gatekeeper, ensuring that expert testimony is both reliable and relevant. Courts must rigorously evaluate not only the reliability of the expert's conclusions but also the soundness of the methodology used to reach them.
Reliability of Expert Testimony: Requires that expert testimony must apply scientific methods and principles to the case's facts. This includes the use of industry-specific standards and fundamental principles of the scientific method.
These amendments are expected to decrease courts' tolerance for unreliable expert witness testimony and enhance the scrutiny of expert opinions. Litigants should meticulously review the amendments to ensure their experts' opinions meet rigorous admissibility and reliability standards.
Notable Cases Applying the Amended Rule 702
Puff Corp. v. SHO Prods (April 2024): In this case, the court excluded the damages expert’s testimony for failing to reliably apply principles and methods to the facts. The expert’s failure to compare the value of the claimed invention to conventional elements demonstrated the rigorous application of Rule 702(d).
Tecossl, Inc. v. Avid Labs (February 2024): Despite the expert’s impressive credentials, including a degree in mechanical engineering, a Juris Doctor, and an LLM in intellectual property law, the court excluded the testimony due to a lack of technical expertise in paint inspection lighting technology.
MGI Digital Technology SA v. Duplo USA Corp. (March 2024): The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California excluded the patentee’s damages expert testimony for failing to conduct a sufficient apportionment analysis. This decision highlights the importance of a robust and reliable methodology.
To ensure expert witness testimony is admissible under the amended Rule 702, patent litigation lawyers should select experts with relevant knowledge and experience and demonstrate the reliability of the expert’s opinion and methodology. Lawyers must also prepare their experts for cross-examination, ensuring they maintain impartiality and comply with the preponderance of the evidence standard. By adhering to these guidelines, patent litigation lawyers can better navigate the complexities of expert witness admissibility, enhancing their chances of favorable outcomes.