Mind + Muscle

technical minds + legal muscle


dig deep

Uniloc's legacy: Are courts stringently applying Daubert to patent damage experts?

  • 12.18.12
  • Byron L. Pickard, Jonathan M. Strang
  • Westlaw Journal: Computer & Internet
In 1993 and 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two key decisions — Daubert and Kumho Tire — that set the standard for admitting expert witness testimony in federal court. The two decisions established the trial court judge’s role as a gatekeeper in determining whether expert witness testimony is both reliable and relevant and, if so, could be admitted. Until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Uniloc USA v. Microsoft Corp. in 2011, the Federal Circuit panels typically deferred to the district court’s wide discretion in allowing or excluding expert damages testimony. In Uniloc, the Federal Circuit departed from this deferential approach and reversed a district court’s admission of expert witness testimony on patent damages.

Jon Strang and Byron Pickard discuss the Federal Circuit’s 2011 decision in Uniloc USA v. Microsoft Corp. and its legacy on using expert testimony as evidence for reasonable patent damages.

The full article may be found on pages 3-5 within the attached PDF. 

Related People

Related Services

Sort By Media Type

Sort By Media Type
  • AlertAlert
  • BriefsBriefs
  • Comments to USPTOComments to USPTO
  • Design Patent Case DigestDesign Patent Case Digest
  • MultimediaMultimedia
  • News & ArticlesNews & Articles
  • Press ReleasePress Release
  • VideoVideo
  • WebinarWebinar

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. will not be considered confidential or privileged, may be disclosed to others, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Sterne Kessler.  If you are not already a client of Sterne Kessler, do not include any confidential information in this message.