How Important is Consistency in an Expert? Rembrant Vision Technologies v. Johnson&Johnson
Rembrant Vision Technologies recently received a $47M award from Ciba along with an undisclosed award from Bausch & Lomb. Shortly after, Johnson & Johnson became Rembrant’s next target. Rembrant sued Johnson & Johnson for infringement on the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,712,327.
The trial took place before U.S. District Judge Timothy Corrigan, and ended in Johnson & Johnson clearing the patent infringement claims over Acuvue contact lenses. The inconsistency of Rembrant’s expert witness, D. Thomas Beebe, has been blamed for the drastically different result than the $47M award is the similar trial just a year earlier.
Beebe contradicted his expert report. During his trial testimony he mentioned using a different methodology of testing than written in his report. Johnson & Johnson moved to exclude Dr. Beebe’s testimony, and the judge granted motion to strike.
“The court thus concludes that Dr. Beebe’s methodology is not scientifically reliable,” the 28-page decision states. “His testing procedures are undocumented and do not conform to the governing scientific standards. The court would be abdicating its gatekeeping role if it allowed the jury to rely on Dr. Beebe’s opinion.”
“Not only did Dr. Beebe depart from generally accepted scientific standards, his methodology is also unreliable because he failed to keep proper records and documentation of his procedures,” Corrigan added.
Inconsistency in expert witness testimony can be the downfall of a case, as seen here. If this has happened with one of your, or opposing counsel’s expert witnesses on the stand, let us know by writing a review on Courtroom Insight!
Article 1: click here
Article 2: click here