Expert Testimony Excluded under Kyocera Where Party Failed to Establish its Expert Possessed the Necessary 'Advanced Training and Experience'

November 1, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the expert must at least meet the definition of a POSITA for the patents-in-suit. Absent that level of skill, Kyocera holds that the witness’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable or relevant enough to be relied on by a fact-finder.

Applying Kyocera, the court in Wave Neuroscience, Inc. v. Brain Frequency LLC excluded an expert witness’s testimony where the party failed to show that the expert was sufficiently skilled. The plaintiff, Wave Neuroscience, Inc. (“Wave”), sued Brain Frequency LLC (“Brain”) for infringement of a patented technology for treating neurological disorders. At the claim construction stage, the parties disagreed about the level of experience required to be a POSITA in this field. Brain proposed that a POSITA would have, among other things, “advanced training and experience” in either electroencephalogram (EEG) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) technology. Wave’s proposed POSITA, on the other hand, required training or experience in both EEG and TMS. 

The court determined that the patents at issue were focused on a TMS technique, which uses EEG results, but only as one part of the process. Thus, the court reasoned, EEG training and experience, by itself, could not qualify an expert to testify about TMS. Accordingly, the court agreed with Wave and found that a POSITA would have advanced training or experience in both EEG and TMS.

Under this definition, the court found that Brain failed to demonstrate that its expert had sufficient skill. Although Brain’s expert had a graduate degree in neuroscience and work experience in EEG, the Court determined that his TMS experience was lacking based on his curriculum vitae (CV). The only mention of TMS experience in the expert’s CV was a two-year research project in which the expert was the “primary investigator.” The court disregarded this work because there was no evidence that, as a primary investigator, the expert had a hands-on or technology-facing role where he could have received the required training or experience. Moreover, the defendant’s descriptions of the expert’s experience were too vague for the Court. There were no details about the scope of the expert’s TMS work, the TMS training the expert may have received as part of the study or even a copy of the publication associated with the project. Accordingly, the court would not “take the leap” in assuming the expert had the required experience and found that Brain failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that its expert was qualified to testify under Kyocera and Rule 702. 

Practice Tip: Following Kyocera, differences between an expert’s precise background and the defined level of skill in the art are no longer just fertile areas for cross examination, but grounds for exclusion. Accordingly, practitioners should either ensure that their proffered expert meets the POSITA definition proposed by both sides, or in cases where the level of skill is proposed after experts are selected, ensure that their expert provides detailed evidence beyond his or her CV to demonstrate that every aspect of the proposed definitions are met.

Wave Neuroscience, Inc. v. Brain Frequency LLC, No. SA-23-CV-00626-XR (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2024) (Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgement action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.