"Datascope was a case where, on cross, the expert admitted to hard facts which indisputably rendered his opinions impossible and therefore incredible."
"In February 2026, a company called Finesse Wireless filed a petition for certiorari at the United States Supreme Court. In it, Finesse Wireless accused that precedential Datascope Federal Circuit decision (which had been cited against it at the Federal Circuit) of being an "infamous" example of the Federal Circuit's purported willingness to review factual determinations made by juries, in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution."
In 2008, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict finding Datascope Corporation liable for patent infringement in a suit brought by Johns Hopkins University. The author represented Datascope in this case. Eighteen years later, in 2026, Finesse Wireless filed a Supreme Court certiorari petition characterizing the Datascope decision as an "infamous" example of the Federal Circuit improperly reviewing jury factual determinations, violating the Seventh Amendment. Finesse Wireless itself had won a $16 million jury verdict but faced similar reversal at the Federal Circuit. The author questions how a vindication of his client's position became viewed as problematic appellate practice.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]