Recently in Expert Witness News Category

Round Table Group has released a new issue of its popular expert witness newsletter. This issue of The Expert Advisor contains valuable advice from two of Round Table Group's experts with vast experience in corporate and patent matters. First, our Featured Expert, Prof. Douglas M. Branson, a renowned authority on corporate governance and securities regulation, provides litigators with 10 tips for use in preparing expert witnesses prior to depositions and trial.

An article authored by Philip L. Brooks, Managing Member of Brooks Consulting LLC, brings an insider's perspective to patent-infringement investigations. Phil explains how methods of investigation have changed over the last decade and notes that important data can be obtained by attending trade shows, speaking with employees and industry experts, and conducting Web research.

A third article highlights the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that limits the ability of patent holders to demand royalties from companies at each stage of the production process.

Need a pathology expert witness? Might want to get your own. Florida's Palm Beach County is set to begin charging outside agencies that want to use one of its Medical Examiner's Office pathologists as an expert witness. The $400 hourly rate would apply to "conferences, depositions, trials and other sworn testimony" in civil cases that involve the county's medical examiners.

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday limited the ability of patent holders to demand royalties from companies at each stage of the production process. The ruling, against LG Electronics Inc., supports the doctrine that a patent holder who sells an invention exhausts their privilege to control how the buyer uses that invention. In the case, LG Electronics had licensed some patents to Intel. It then subsequently charged several Intel customers of committing patent infringement. LG asserted that the Intel customers owed royalties because they blended non-Intel products with Intel microprocessors and chipsets.

Check out the full story here.

A psychology expert witness has stirred up a bit of controversy in the field of personal injury law with the creation of a true-false test he contends can identify individuals faking injuries or psychological symptoms in order to collect damage awards. Critics decry that almost anyone claiming to have an injury would be branded a "malingerer" under the test. However, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory has endorsed it and even made it a part of its MMPI.

A caveat....

The WSJ article discussing the test notes that the psychologist performs 95% of his expert witness work for the defense.

Patent expert witnesses in numerous fields should have a busy year, as there seems to be no letup in the demand for such expertise. The Intellectual Property Group at FTI Consulting recently updated their intellectual property prosecution and litigation statistics to include data for 2006. According to the statistics, the number of patent cases in U.S. District Courts increased to 2,830, a gain of 90 over 2005. Further, the number of patent applications filed in 2006 rose dramatically to an incredible 443,652. There was also a rise in the number trademark cases, going from 3,668 in 2005 to 3,740 in 2006. Check out the full statistics here.

A New Jersey state judge recently ruled that prosecutors did not steal a defense expert witness slated to testify in the approaching vehicular homicide trial of a state trooper. The defense moved to disqualify the expert witness, an authority on event data recorders, otherwise known as "black boxes," because the defense team had contacted him first. The judge, however, found that there was "no retainer, no payment, no bills for services rendered, no notes, records or memoranda memorializing that relationship..." The judge also noted that in cases where only a few experts in a specialized field exist, an attorney could effectively prevent the opposing side from engaging a witness simply by talking to all of the experts, thus binding them without an expert contract or other evidence of a formal relationship. Not on this judge's watch apparently. Bravo.

Thanks to the Wall Police Blotter for the story.

John Torkelsen, a damages expert who made millions of dollars as an expert witness in numerous business lawsuits, plead guilty to perjury on Thursday. He admitted that he lied about how he was paid in a securities class-action case. Torkelsen apparently entered into secret fee-shifting deals with several law firms and as a result, those firms were able avoid millions in fees. He was also accused of submitting inflated bills only in successful cases. As such, he was essentially working on a contingent fee basis.

See the Law.com story here.

The California Court of Appeal, 1^st District, recently rendered a decision in Lambert v. Carneghi that could open the door for lawsuits by a litigant against their expert witness in situations where the expert's testimony harms the client's case. This would obviously have a huge impact on the ability of an expert to present unbiased testimony. Accordingly, the Forensic Expert Witness Association has filed an amicus brief with the California Supreme Court urging review of the decision.

For an in depth looking at the decision check out this summary by the law firm of Gordon and Rees LLP. Stay tuned.

Ronald Miller, over at the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, notes a recent Alaska Supreme Court decision holding that the financial records of an expert witness may be "discoverable and admissible" in order to demonstrate possible bias. The concern is that if an expert derives too much of his or her income from a particular side, say the plaintiff, or a specific attorney or firm, it is reasonable then to question that expert's impartiality. Lawyers in a narrow field who use the same expert repeatedly may want to utilize a variety of experts in order to avoid such an appearance.

Check out the Alaska Supreme Court holding.

A Canadian judge is currently hearing final arguments at the inquiry of a medical doctor and expert witness who was once considered to be the leading mind in the field of pediatric pathology. Dr. Charles Smith previously testified at the inquiry that he had no formal training in the field and that this may have contributed to mistakes in numerous cases. Further admissions have indicated that he believed that his role as an expert witness was to support the prosecution's case. It is feared that numerous parents and caregivers may have been wrongly convicted in molesting or killing their children.

The full National Post story can be found here.