by Dennis Crouch
In patent litigation, we continue to see enhanced focus on qualifying (i.e., disqualifying) expert witnesses. Skilled expert testimony can be so convincing for a jury while also laying the foundation to win on appeal. And, expert testimony is a legal necessity in most patent cases both for damages calculations (damages expert) as well as for validity and infringement (technical expert). Having your expert knocked-out just before or in the midst of trial is a nightmare situation.
In its 2022 Kyocera decision, the Federal Circuit explained that a technical expert must – at minimum – be a person of skill in the art to which the invention pertains. Someone who purports to be an expert but lacks that ‘ordinary’ knowledge will be disqualified under patent law’s Daubert nuance. In patent law, PHOSITA’s knowledge is temporally tied to the patent application filing date (or invention date pre-AIA). What we’re typically looking for is the level of skill at the time that the application was filed (or perhaps when issued / amended).
This temporal frame is the focus of the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Osseo Imaging v. Planmeca, where the court was asked to disqualify the patentee’s expert witness because he was not skilled in the art back when the invention was made — rather, became skilled almost a decade later.
The case has some parallels to EcoFactor v. Google, that is currently pending before the Federal Circuit on an en banc petition regarding admissibility of damages expert testimony.
Defense Side Amici Support for Tighter Reins on Damages Expert Testimony
Read the decision: Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., No. 2023-1627 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2024). Opinion by Judge Stoll, joined by Judges Dyk and Clevenger.
Background: Osseo Imaging’s patents related to orthopedic imaging systems using X-ray beam techniques to create tomographic and densitometric models. Osseo sued Planmeca, alleging infringement by Planmeca’s ProMax 3D imaging systems. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,381,301, 6,944,262, and 8,498,374. A jury sided with the patentee with a $2.3 million damages award, and Planmeca appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on both infringement and invalidity. The appeal’s central focus was a challenge to the testimony of Osseo’s technical expert, Dr. Omid Kia with Planmeca arguing that Kia’s testimony should be disregarded entirely because he did not possess the requisite skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in 1999. Instead, Planmeca contended that Dr. Kia only acquired the necessary experience 8 to 10 years after the critical date.
Key Holding: In its decision, the Federal Circuit sided with the patentee — holding that an expert should not be disqualified based simply upon the timing of their skill. Rather, the focus should be on whether their analysis is reliable.
Even assuming Planmeca is correct in asserting that that [the patentee-s expert] Dr. [Omid] Kia did not have the requisite 3 to 5 years of diagnostic imaging experience until 8 to 10 years after the time of the invention, we are not convinced that Dr. Kia’s infringement analysis was unreliable such that it cannot form a basis for supporting the jury verdict.
Osseo Imaging, slip op. at 7. At oral arguments, Judge Dyk aligned with this same view, although the accused infringer’s counsel tried to explain the problem:
Judge Dyk: I have trouble with that because I don’t see why somebody who acquired expertise later couldn’t say, this is a state of the art at the time of the invention, and I’ve learned that through my studies and talking to other people.
Wasif Qureshi for Appellants: He didn’t do that, Your Honor. Dr. Kiah did not do that.
Judge Dyk: Did he look at the prior art?
Qureshi: He looked at the prior art, but he did not say, I went back in time to learn what one of ordinary skill in the art in 1990 would have understood this prior art or these claims to be. He did not do that.
This quote highlights the court’s skepticism about requiring an expert to have been a POSITA at the time of invention, but counsel also focuses on the practical concern that the relevant level of skill is at the time of the patent.
Distinction from Kyocera
What I see here is a pragmatic approach from Judge Stoll that is somewhat distinct from the rule-based approach taken by Chief Judge Moore in Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022). In that case, the court explained:
To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.
In Osseo, the court did not reject this Kyocera baseline, but noted that the prior decision did not address the timing of when that skill must be acquired. Osseo Imaging fills this gap, clarifying that the acquisition of skill need not precisely coincide with the time of invention — and concluding that the ultimate goal is to ensure that the expert is providing reliable and relevant insights about the state of the art at the relevant time. In this case, the court concluded that Dr. Kia testified about what was known in the field at the relevant time and so rejected the appeal arguing otherwise.
A few important issues to note here:
- Shortage of Experts? I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say that we need more people willing to announce their expertise, but I can see a potential shortage of qualified individuals in cases like this where the invention occurred 25 years ago — especially if the case had gone the other ways and required any testimony come from experts who were already skilled as of that time.
- Potential for Cross-Examination: The timing of an expert’s skill acquisition may still be a fruitful area for cross-examination. While not disqualifying, it could be used to challenge the inventor’s credibility. “Isn’t it true that you were in 7th grade in 1997?” [Note here that Dr. Kia already had a PhD by the time of the invention.]
- Importance of Expert Prep: While this new decision offers flexibility compared with Kyocera, the expert still needs to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the state of the art at the time of invention. And, should be able to testify as to how that understanding was obtained.
The Osseo Imaging decision is obviously important for anyone litigating patent cases, and introduces some flexibility that might have been absent from our thinking after Kyocera. However, for me it is also an interesting reflection of different jurisprudential approaches at the court, contrasting Chief Judge Moore’s rule-based focus against that of other judges such as Judge Stoll.
Seth Ostrow of Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC argued for the plaintiff-appellee Osseo Imaging, LLC, joined on the brief by Robert Feinland.
Wasif Qureshi of Jackson Walker LLP argued for the defendant-appellant Planmeca USA Inc., joined on the brief by Leisa Talbert Peschel, and Blake Dietrich also from Jackson Walker along with Michael Flynn of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP.
= = =
I love camping near Lake of the Ozarks here in Missouri, and I was happy to find that the inventor and owner in these cases is Dr. Ron Massie – A Lake Ozark dentist. Kansas solo practitioner Mark Brown prosecuted the patents.
= = =
I mentioned the EcoFactor case above, briefing is done for the en banc petition and we are now awaiting a decision from the Federal Circuit on whether to grant rehearing.
“ The appeal’s central focus was a challenge to the testimony of Osseo’s technical expert, Dr. Omid Kia with Planmeca arguing that Kia’s testimony should be disregarded entirely because he did not possess the requisite skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in 1999.”
Good grief, this is ridiculous. No doubt an IDEAL expert would be someone who was deeply immersed in the field at the time of the invention and who continues to study the field and is well-respected for their expertise by everyone involved, including the alleged inventors. But a requirement like the one proposed above is absurd. If you want to impeach an expert who “wasn’t there” then by all means knock yourself out. But a test like this that preemptively excludes an expert’s testimony regarding some technological history because they weren’t themselves at the bleeding edge of the field is a silly and slippery slope to go down.
In the waning days, a post by Malcolm that I fully agree with.