Centricut, Llc v. The Esab Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a patentee could not withstand summary judgment on the issue of literal infringement in a case involving complex technology in the absence of expert testimony
• recognizing that “relevant expert testimony regarding matters beyond the comprehension of laypersons is sometimes essential” and that “‘typically’ expert testimony will be necessary in cases involving complex technology”
• declining to impose a per se rule that expert testimony is required even in cases of complex technology
• finding expert element-by-element analysis necessary to establish infringement where the patents concerned electrodes for plasma arc torches
• “In many patent cases expert testimony will not be necessary because the technology will be ‘easily understandable without the need for expert explanatory testimony.’” (citation omitted)
• expert testimony is “typically” needed in patent infringement case “[w]here the field or art is complex”: patentee fails to meet its burden of proof without expert testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).