Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding patent attorney expert witness not trained as a POSA unqualified to testify on issues of infringement or validity
• finding that because the technology was simple, an expert witness was not needed to support a holding of obviousness
• noting that 19 claim construction, claim infringement, what specific prior art references disclose, and 20 obviousness are all determined “from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art”
• holding that when “an issue calls for consideration of evidence from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, it is contradictory to Rule 702 to allow a witness to testify on the issue who is not qualified as a technical expert in that art” (emphasis added)
• “Admitting testimony from a person . . . with no skill in the pertinent art[] serves only to cause mischief and confuse the factfinder.”
• \Allowing a patent law expert without any technical expertise to testify on the issues of infringement and validity amounts to nothing more than advocacy from the witness stand.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).