Federal Appeals Court Affirms ‘Word Salad’ Is Insufficient Foundation for Patent Infringement
In NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, a federal appeals court confirmed that vague and conclusory expert testimony at trial cannot support a finding of patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC issued a precedential decision affirming a district court’s order vacating a jury verdict of infringement because it was supported by nothing more than “word salad” from the patent holder’s expert witness. The court found the expert testimony deficient in several respects, but mainly found it lacking for failing to explain “what the function, way, and result of both the claimed device and the accused device are, and why those functions, ways, and results are substantially the same.”
Keep Up to Date in a Changing World
