The Federal Circuit has mandated a new trial in a case involving Trudell Medical International Inc. and D R Burton Healthcare, LLC after deeming the admission of expert testimony untimely and unreliable. The court’s decision, which reverses the district court’s ruling from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, has significant implications for the ongoing patent dispute, centering on U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588, related to devices designed for oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) therapy.
In this case, Trudell appealed the district court’s decision allowing the testimony of Dr. Collins, a key expert witness for D R Burton. The appeal also challenged the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial regarding the infringement of certain claims of the ’588 patent. D R Burton had initially cross-appealed the jury’s verdict, asserting that the claims were not invalid, but later withdrew this cross-appeal.
Key Findings of the Federal Circuit
The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by allowing Dr. Collins’ testimony. The court found that D R Burton’s disclosure of his testimony was untimely, lacking substantial justification or a demonstration that the delay was harmless. Furthermore, the court determined that Dr. Collins’ testimony did not meet the criteria for reliability as outlined in Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
As a result, the Federal Circuit not only reversed the lower court’s decision but also ordered a new trial. Importantly, the retrial will exclude Dr. Collins’ testimony regarding non-infringement and will be assigned to a different district court judge. This reassignment stems from concerns about the trial judge’s comments, which the Federal Circuit felt undermined the perceived fairness of the trial process, drawing parallels to a previous case, Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc..
Implications for the Case
In affirming the district court’s denial of Trudell’s JMOL motion, the Federal Circuit noted that the jury could have reasonably discredited Trudell’s expert testimony. This aspect highlights the importance of the jury’s role in evaluating the credibility of expert witnesses in patent litigation.
The upcoming retrial will proceed with the existing evidence but will not reopen discovery, keeping the focus on the issues central to the infringement claims. As this case moves forward, it underscores the critical standards of expert testimony admissibility and the potential impact on patent infringement cases in the future.
The Federal Circuit’s ruling serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for expert disclosures and the need for timely and reliable evidence in legal proceedings.
