Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 SEPTEMBER 2024

Federal Circuit Rejects Timing Requirement For Expert Qualification Under Kyocera

Akin
Akin
Contributor
Akin

Akin

Akin is a global law firm with more than 1,100 lawyers and advisors who pride themselves on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Akin

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a "person of ordinary skill in the art" ...

United StatesIntellectual Property

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a "person of ordinary skill in the art" of the asserted patents in order to opine on infringement, among other issues. This new bright-line test and the underlying rationale, however, raised several new questions regarding expert admissibility. See "Federal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert's Testimony" and "Grappling With A Bright-Line Patent Expert Admissibility Test." The Federal Circuit recently addressed one of those questions, namely whether an expert must have acquired the requisite level of skill as of the time of the invention or whether it is sufficient for an expert to acquire that knowledge at a later date.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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.

See more popular content from