The Federal Circuit has ordered a new trial in a patent infringement case involving Trudell Medical International Inc. and D R Burton Healthcare, LLC. The appellate court found that the district court improperly admitted expert testimony from Dr. Collins due to untimely disclosure and concerns over its reliability under the Federal Rules of Evidence 702.
The case originated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and was overseen by Judge Terrance William Boyle. Trudell holds U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588, which pertains to devices used in oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) therapy. Trudell appealed the lower court’s decision to allow Dr. Collins to testify. The appeal also challenged the court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) regarding the infringement of specific claims of the patent.
In the proceedings, D R Burton cross-appealed the jury’s verdict affirming the validity of the asserted claims but later withdrew that cross-appeal. The core issue at hand was whether the district court abused its discretion by permitting Dr. Collins’ testimony.
The Federal Circuit concluded that D R Burton’s disclosure of Dr. Collins’ testimony was untimely. The district court failed to justify the delay or demonstrate that it was harmless. Additionally, the appellate court deemed Dr. Collins’ testimony unreliable, leading to the decision to remand the case for a new trial. This retrial will proceed without Dr. Collins’ testimony and will not allow for reopening discovery.
The rationale for reassigning the case to a different judge stemmed from statements made by the trial judge that could compromise the perception of fairness. This situation draws parallels to the Fourth Circuit case, Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., which underscored the importance of maintaining impartiality in judicial proceedings.
Despite the reversal concerning Dr. Collins’ testimony, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of Trudell’s JMOL motion. The court noted that the jury had the discretion to discredit Trudell’s expert testimony, demonstrating the complex dynamics at play in patent litigation.
As this case moves forward, all parties will prepare for the retrial, focusing on the existing evidence while navigating the implications of the recent ruling. The outcome may significantly impact the ongoing legal landscape surrounding patent rights and expert testimony in the United States.
