Expert Testimony Not Required for Infringement Finding

Screenshot019Kyocera Wireless v. President Electronics and Tony Colida (Fed. Cir. 2006, unpublished).

In a DJ action, Kyocera was awarded summary judgment of noninfringement. On appeal, Colida argued that expert testimony is required for such a summary determination. The CAFC, however, affirmed its prior precedent that expert evidence is “not always necessary to resolve questions of patent infringement.”

While expert evidence may be necessary in cases involving complex technology, this is not such a case, and Mr. Colida does not explain how expert evidence would have been helpful.

Affirmed

Colida has been involved in several other CAFC decisions:

 

One thought on “Expert Testimony Not Required for Infringement Finding

  1. I was not able to go back far enough in your past posts to discover any information about Mr. Colida. Are there any facts that might demonstrate that he had contacted these companies with his design prior to their introduction of products on the market, or is this simply a case of his claiming they copied his design after his design had been put on the market? The court also doesn’t say clearly what might have crossed the line in terms of infringement. How close is too close when it comes to copying design? Finally, is there any credit given, in such a case, to the timing of product release? For instance, if Mr. Colida’s design was already on the market when the later products were released, does that weigh at all in the court’s judgment? A fascinating case in discriminating exactly what constitutes design theft. It seems to me that proving theft is pretty difficult.

Comments are closed.