In HVLPO2, LLC, v.
Oxygen Frog, LLC, [2019-1649] (February 5, 2020), the
Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's
determination that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,876,941 and 9,372,488 would
have been obvious because the district court abused its discretion
by admitting lay witness testimony regarding obviousness. The
patents are directed to methods and devices for controlling an
oxygen-generating system.
At trial, Oxygen Frog argued that the claims were obvious in
view of a combination of two prior art references. The author of
one of the references, Tyler Piebes, was not qualified as an expert
witness, but did provide deposition testimony as a fact witness.
HLVPO2, which goes by HVO, objected to Mr. Piebes' testimony
regarding obviousness as improper expert opinion testimony. The
district court overruled the objection, and instead gave the jury a
limiting instruction prior to playing Mr. Piebes' deposition
testimony.
