Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 OCTOBER 2013

Expert Testimony About New Testing Methodologies Inadmissible When Not Disclosed In Expert Report

Addressing the issue of whether a technical expert's failure to disclose specific testing methodology was merely a "typo" or a previously non-disclosed opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of non-infringement because the expert failed to support evidence of infringement.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.

Addressing the issue of whether a technical expert's failure to disclose specific testing methodology was merely a "typo" or a previously non-disclosed opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of non-infringement because the expert failed to support evidence of infringement. Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Case No. 12-1510 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 7, 2013) (Moore, J.)

Plaintiff Rembrandt Vision Technologies sued Johnson & Johnson Vision Care (JJVC) for patent infringement by JJVC's Advance and Oasys contact lenses. At issue was whether JJVC's lenses were "soft gas permeable lenses." The parties agreed to a claim construction of this term as "a contact lens having a Hardness (Shore D) less than five."

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.

See more popular content from