127 F.4th 1340
Fed. Cir.2025Background
- Trudell Medical International Inc. (Trudell) owns U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588, relating to portable oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) therapy devices.
- Trudell sued D R Burton Healthcare, LLC (D R Burton) for patent infringement regarding several of D R Burton’s OPEP devices.
- The case involved complex procedural steps, including claim construction and changes to the discovery and trial schedule, with tight and amended deadlines.
- During pretrial and trial, disputes arose over the admissibility of expert testimony on noninfringement by Dr. Collins, whose expert report was disclosed after discovery had closed.
- The jury found the patent valid but not infringed; Trudell moved for JMOL or a new trial, both of which were denied, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Untimely Expert Testimony | Dr. Collins' noninfringement testimony should be excluded as untimely and unreliable under FRCP 26 and FRE 702 | The testimony was adequately disclosed and any late disclosure was justified or harmless; both parties submitted late reports | District court abused discretion by admitting Dr. Collins' testimony; exclusion required |
| JMOL on Infringement | Without Dr. Collins' testimony, no evidence supports noninfringement, entitling Trudell to JMOL | Sufficient evidence of noninfringement remains, including testimony from Gregory Lau and cross-examination of Trudell's expert | Denied JMOL; jury could reasonably find noninfringement |
| Motion for New Trial | Admission of Dr. Collins’ testimony prejudiced Trudell and led to a miscarriage of justice | Admission of testimony did not prejudice Trudell due to other evidence | New trial warranted; district court abused discretion by denying motion |
| Reassignment to New Judge | Trial judge’s conduct and statements created appearance of partiality, warranting reassignment | (Not explicitly summarized) | Reassignment ordered to preserve appearance of fairness |
Key Cases Cited
- Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp., 10 F.4th 268 (4th Cir. 2021) (standard for review of expert testimony admissions and abuses of discretion under Rule 702)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (importance of district court's gatekeeping for expert testimony under Rule 702)
- S. States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003) (factors for determining if failure to disclose under Rule 26 is harmless or substantially justified)
- Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (JMOL review standard in the Fourth Circuit)
- Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 762 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2014) (standards for granting a new trial)
- G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016) (standards for reassignment to a different judge to preserve appearance of justice)