Expert Testimony Not Required for Infringement Finding

Kyocera Wireless v. President Electronics and Tony Colida (Fed. Cir. 2006, unpublished).

In a DJ action, Kyocera was awarded summary judgment of noninfringement. On appeal, Colida argued that expert testimony is required for such a summary determination. The CAFC, however, affirmed its prior precedent that expert evidence is “not always necessary to resolve questions of patent infringement.”

While expert evidence may be necessary in cases involving complex technology, this is not such a case, and Mr. Colida does not explain how expert evidence would have been helpful.

Affirmed

Colida has been involved in several other CAFC decisions:

• Mobile Phone Manufacturers Win Design Patent Suits
• District Court's Review of Figures in Design Patent Sufficient for Summary Judgment
• Design Patents: Appeals Court Finds Cell-Phone Infringement Suit to be Frivolous