The Federal Circuit has mandated a new trial in the case involving Trudell Medical International Inc. and D R Burton Healthcare, LLC. This decision comes after the court found that D R Burton’s expert testimony was disclosed too late, violating the Federal Rules of Evidence 702. The circuit court also reversed the district court’s ruling that had denied a motion for a new trial concerning patent infringement.
The appeal originated from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, specifically overseen by Judge Terrance William Boyle. Central to the case is U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588, which pertains to devices designed for oscillatory positive expiratory pressure therapy. Trudell sought to overturn the district court’s allowance of Dr. Collins’ testimony and its refusal to grant a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) regarding certain claims of the ‘588 patent.
D R Burton initially contested the jury’s verdict that deemed the asserted claims valid but later withdrew its cross-appeal. The critical question before the Federal Circuit was whether the district judge had abused discretion by permitting Dr. Collins’ testimony.
The Federal Circuit concluded that D R Burton’s disclosure of Dr. Collins’ testimony was indeed untimely. The court criticized the district court for failing to provide justification for the delayed disclosure, stating that it was neither substantially justified nor harmless. Furthermore, the circuit court deemed Dr. Collins’ testimony unreliable under the relevant evidence rules.
As a result, the case has been remanded for a new trial. This retrial will take place without Dr. Collins’ non-infringement testimony and will not reopen discovery. The Federal Circuit’s decision also included a reassignment of the case to a different district court judge. This move was influenced by remarks made by the trial judge that cast doubt on the fairness of the proceedings, drawing parallels to the Fourth Circuit case, Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc..
While the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of Trudell’s JMOL motion regarding infringement, it recognized that the jury could reasonably have found Trudell’s expert testimony lacking in credibility. The upcoming retrial will utilize existing evidence, albeit without the contested testimony from Dr. Collins, ensuring a more equitable hearing.
This ruling underscores the importance of timely and reliable expert testimony in patent litigation, highlighting the courts’ commitment to maintaining rigorous standards for evidence presentation. As this case moves forward, all eyes will be on the new trial to see how the absence of Dr. Collins’ testimony impacts the outcome.
