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.