Opinion ID: 6112100
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Pratt’s Testimony

Text: During claim construction, the ALJ adopted Koki’s definition of a skilled artisan: A person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the Asserted Patents would have either (i) a Master’s Degree in mechanical engineering with at least two years of experience in power nailer design; (ii) a Bachelor’s Degree in mechanical engineering with at least five years of experience in powered nailer design; or, (iii) ten or more years of experience in powered nailer design. This experience in powered nailer design would include mechanical design, tool design, manufacturing, mechanics of materials, stress analysis, ergonomics, and human fac- tors. J.A. 1476 (emphases added). That definition requires, at minimum, two years’ experience designing power nailers. In adopting this definition, the ALJ noted how Kyocera chose not to contest, and even seemed to adopt, Koki’s articulation of the ordinary level of skill in the art. See J.A. 217–18; J.A. 1676 (Dr. Pratt opining that he “m[et] [Koki’s] level of skill and [applied] it in reaching [his] conclusions found in [his] [rebuttal] declaration”). Kyocera offered Dr. Pratt as a technical expert on claim construction, J.A. 1669; invalidity, J.A. 756; literal Case: 20-1046 Document: 87 Page: 10 Filed: 01/21/2022 10 KYOCERA SENCO INDUS. TOOLS INC v. ITC infringement, id.; and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, id. Dr. Pratt has advanced degrees in engineering and extensive experience in the design and manufacture of fastener driving tools. J.A. 754–75. But he lacks experience in power nailer design. J.A. 2260 (“Q[:] Dr. Pratt, do you have experience designing powered nailers? A[:] Not nailers.”). Because of Dr. Pratt’s lack of experience, the ALJ excluded his testimony on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. J.A. 262–68. He found that Kyocera failed to preserve any challenge to the level of ordinary skill in the art and that Dr. Pratt lacked that skill. He also reasoned that, because testimony from a skilled artisan is required, Kyocera would be unable to prove doctrine-of-equivalents infringement using Dr. Pratt’s testimony. While excluding Dr. Pratt’s testimony under the doctrine of equivalents because he was not at a minimum an ordinarily skilled artisan, the ALJ admitted Dr. Pratt’s testimony as to literal infringement. Both Kyocera and Koki challenge the ALJ’s order partially excluding Dr. Pratt’s testimony. Kyocera argues that Dr. Pratt should have been permitted to testify on both literal and doctrine-of-equivalents infringement. Koki argues Dr. Pratt should not have been permitted to testify at all. 4 The Commission, responding to both Kyocera and Koki, defends the ALJ’s order partially excluding the testimony. We “review the admission of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also 4 Koki preserved this argument by raising it in its contingent petition for review of ALJ’s second initial determination. See J.A. 4157. We need not reach whether Kyocera preserved its arguments. Case: 20-1046 Document: 87 Page: 11 Filed: 01/21/2022 KYOCERA SENCO INDUS. TOOLS INC v. ITC 11 Winbond Elecs. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 262 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (reviewing an evidentiary determination by the Commission for an abuse of discretion). Because Dr. Pratt lacked ordinary skill in the art, the ALJ abused his discretion by admitting any of Dr. Pratt’s testimony.
To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable. The opinions would not be based on any specialized knowledge, training, or experience that would be helpful to the factfinder. In fact, “[a]dmitting testimony from a person . . . with no skill in the pertinent art serves only to cause mischief and confuse the factfinder.” Sundance, 550 F.3d at 1362. That testimony would “amount[] to nothing more than advocacy from the witness stand.” Id. at 1364–65. This is true regardless of whether the witness is being offered to testify on literal infringement, doctrine-of-equivalents infringement, or both. Nothing about literal infringement makes an unqualified witness’ testimony more relevant or more reliable. And the same goes for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The absence of relevant knowledge and the risk for abuse apply equally to both situations. Our opinion in AquaTex Industries, Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 479 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2007), is not to the contrary. There, we addressed when expert testimony is required: always for doctrine-of-equivalents infringement and sometimes for literal infringement. Id. We did not, however, address the minimum qualifications necessary to offer testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan. Only the latter question is relevant here, and, therefore, AquaTex is inapt. Case: 20-1046 Document: 87 Page: 12 Filed: 01/21/2022 12 KYOCERA SENCO INDUS. TOOLS INC v. ITC Nor does Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. Hawk Measurement Systems Party, 122 F.3d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1997), prevent us from requiring a witness to possess at least ordinary skill in the art to testify from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case. To be sure, the person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical construct. Id. And as Endress recognized, it would be improper to require an expert witness to possess ordinary skill in the art and nothing more. If that were the case, “a person of exceptional skill in the art would be disqualified from testifying as an expert because [he is] not ordinary enough.” Id. (emphasis omitted). But Endress itself recognized that, to testify as an expert, a witness must be qualified. See id. (“To the extent that the gravamen of defendants’ complaint is that Dr. Silva was unqualified to testify as an expert witness at all, the record reflects his substantial credentials as an electrical engineer, and the decision to permit him to testify was well within the discretion of the trial judge.”). And to be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at a minimum possess ordinary skill in the art.
Here, Dr. Pratt does not have ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art, adopted during claim construction, requires experience in power nailer design. And Dr. Pratt lacks such experience. Kyocera does not challenge these findings on appeal. See Oral Arg. at 10:4– 7 (“We’re not arguing to change the level of ordinary skill in the art ruling here.”). 5 Accordingly, the ALJ abused his discretion by admitting Dr. Pratt’s testimony on any issue 5 Even if Kyocera had not abandoned this challenge, it failed to preserve it. During claim construction, Kyocera accepted and applied Koki’s definition of ordinary skill. J.A. 1676. Case: 20-1046 Document: 87 Page: 13 Filed: 01/21/2022 KYOCERA SENCO INDUS. TOOLS INC v. ITC 13 that is analyzed through the lens of an ordinarily skilled artisan. 6