slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Today

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 217 Views
  • Uploaded on

Today. 4:15 pm: Daubert – in the Supreme Court, in patent cases (liability issues only), on remand 5:20 pm: UCBerkeley Transcripts: What can we learn? 5:55 pm: Choosing patents, teams, roles. Ordering file histories. Scheduling conferences for next week. When to get to:

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Sci.Ev. 2006-rjm' - JasminFlorian


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Today

  • 4:15 pm: Daubert – in the Supreme Court, in patent cases (liability issues only), on remand
  • 5:20 pm: UCBerkeley Transcripts: What can we learn?
  • 5:55 pm:
    • Choosing patents, teams, roles.
    • Ordering file histories.
    • Scheduling conferences for next week.
    • When to get to:
      • Finishing instant patent law and instant civil procedure with grad students.
      • Looking at the patents the grad students found.
  • 6:05 pm: Midterm Evaluations
  • Next Week: No class, just meetings, but claim charts (at least left hand column) due Friday (?)

Week 7

slide2
DAUBERT
  • the name everyone* associates with the phrase “scientific expert testimony”
  • * law universe, expert witness universe
  • Daubert in the Supreme Court
  • Questions from the class Science Experts for the class Lawyers (from week 4)
  • Daubert on Remand
  • Your Best/Worst Facts
  • Daubert in Patent Cases (Liability Issues)
  • What you learned (from weeks 4 [law] and 6 [grad])

Week 7

slide3
Daubert in the Supreme Court
  • The Petition for Cert
  • QUESTIONS PRESENTED
  • 1. Whether, in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal courts may apply the rule of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), and hold expert scientific testimony inadmissible unless it has attained general acceptance in the relevant scientific field.2. Whether the Frye rule (assuming its applicability) is properly construed to make the admissibility of expert scientific testimony depend upon prior publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
  • The Interesting, Interested AMICI

Week 7

slide4
Daubert in the Supreme Court
  • http://www.stanford.edu/~rjmorris/sciev/PPT/04.PPT - go to slide 13
  • Where are they (plaintiffs’ experts) now?
  • Shanna Helen Swan (1999 NRC/NAS 4-year study)
  • Stuart A. Newman – still at NYMC
  • Why do Rehnquist and Stevens (not a likely pair) refuse to join in part of the decision?
  • - Questions from the class Science Experts for the class Lawyers (from week 4)

Week 7

slide5

Daubert in the Supreme Court

Rule 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS

Federal Rules of Evidence

  • may testify thereto
  • in the form of an opinion or otherwise,
  • if (1) the testimony is
  • based upon sufficient facts or data,
  • (2) the testimony is
  • the product of reliable
  • - principles and
  • - methods, and
  • (3) the witness has applied the
  • - principles and
  • - methods
  • reliably to the facts of the case.
  • If
  • - scientific,
  • - technical, or
  • - other specialized
  • knowledge
  • will assist the trier of fact
  • - to understand the evidence or
  • - to determine a fact in issue,
  • a witness qualified as an expert by
  • - knowledge,
  • - skill,
  • - experience,
  • - training, or
  • - education,

Week 7

slide6

Daubert in the Supreme Court

Rule 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS

Federal Rules of Evidence

  • Daubert Decision’s Version of Rule 702 (See part C)
  • Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, then,
  • the trial judge must determine at the outset,
  • pursuant to Rule 104(a), {n10}
  • whether the expert is proposing to testify to
  • (1) scientific knowledge that
  • (2) will assist the trier of fact to
  • understand or determine
  • a fact in issue. {n11}
  • This entails a preliminary assessment
  • - of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and
  • - of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.
  • ---
  • {n10} Rule 104(a) provides:
  • "Preliminary questions concerning
  • the qualification of a person to be a witness,
  • the existence of a privilege, or
  • the admissibility of evidence
  • shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b) [pertaining to conditional admissions]. In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges."
  • These matters should be established by a preponderance of proof. SeeBourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175‑176, 97 L. Ed. 2d 144, 107 S. Ct. 2775 (1987).

Week 7

slide7

Daubert in the Supreme Court

Rule 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS

Federal Rules of Evidence

  • Daubert Decision’s Version of Rule 702 (See part C)
  • Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, then,
  • the trial judge must determine at the outset,
  • pursuant to Rule 104(a), {n10}
  • whether the expert is proposing to testify to
  • (1) scientific knowledge that
  • (2) will assist the trier of fact to
  • understand or determine
  • a fact in issue. {n11}
  • This entails a preliminary assessment
  • - of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and
  • - of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.
  • ---
  • {n10} Rule 104(a) provides:
  • "Preliminary questions concerning
  • the qualification of a person to be a witness,
  • the existence of a privilege, or
  • the admissibility of evidence
  • shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b) [pertaining to conditional admissions]. In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges."
  • These matters should be established by a preponderance of proof. SeeBourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175‑176, 97 L. Ed. 2d 144, 107 S. Ct. 2775 (1987).
  • -Has the theory or technique been TESTED
  • Has it been published in a PEER REVIEWED journal
  • Rates of error; standardization of technique
  • GENERAL ACCEPTANCE

Week 7

slide8
Daubert on Remand - Your Best/Worst Facts
  • Preliminaries: the FINAL JUDGMENT rule
  • US Births (per UNICEF, for 2004): 4,134,000
  • 1992 (per CDC): 4,065,014
  • 1990 (per CDC, 1992 report): 4, 158,212
  • Birth defects: 1 out of 33 babies.
  • Limb reduction defects: ?? Can’t find any data.
  • 1:1000? I know 2, have encountered 2 more. How many people have I, a former resident of NYC, encountered in my life of X years? Well over 4000.

Week 7

slide9
Daubert on Remand - Your Best/Worst Facts
  • Best & Counter – Daubert Merrell Dow
  • MD answer Daubert Answer
  • Henry: Multiple Theories Initial Victory
  • Fernando: Method hidden E/W Respect for Supremes (H/W)
  • Adam: Deformed Babies FDA Approval
  • Jeremy: Multiple Causes E/W FDA is a given (E/?)
  • Ann Marie: Augment Affts Option P Experts: no indep. res.
  • Angela: Palmer has -0- to say E/W FDA approval is old E/L
  • Angela: Frye fried D has no BOP
  • Chrissy: FR702 E/W P meets BOP D/L
  • Fernando: COULD Augment P Experts method unexplained
  • Ann Marie: Could but no ‘fit’ E/L P fails “fit” E/W

Week 7

slide10
Daubert on Remand - Your Best/Worst Facts
  • Best & Counter – Daubert Merrell Dow
  • MD answer Daubert Answer
  • Jason: Frye fried 6th Cir rejected Palmer
  • Lisa: Lousy science anyway E/W That was under Frye E/L
  • Jeremy: Teratogenic in animals No peer reviewed pub
  • Jason: No peer rev pub E/W Real babies E/L
  • Lisa: Deformed babies BOP on P
  • Alvin: M/Exclude photos E/W Let P supplement affts. H/L
  • Chrissy: Great Reputations Gen.Acc. still lives
  • Adam: Legal Standard E/W P’s Methods are gen.acc.E/L
  • Alvin: FR702 FDA
  • Henry: P lacks PROOF H/W Peer rev trumps FDA H/W

Week 7

slide11
Daubert on Remand – My Best Fact, but for whom?
  • It’s 1995. Bendectin was available from 1957 to 1982. Where’s the data on NATIONAL limb reduction defects (annual totals) for the years, say,1947-1956, 1957-1982, 1983-1995?
  • Maybe that data is neutral or ambiguous, and maybe 1983-88 or so is affected by women who had Bendectin from a previous pregnancy or a friend. But what if the data is DRAMATIC? Even a 2-fold difference in annual average rate during the Bendectin years? Why doesn’t either party gather this information? Is it just not available? Are they BOTH scared?

Week 7

slide12
Daubert in Patent Cases (Liability Issues)
  • What you learned (from weeks 4 [law] and 6 [grad])
  • Carnegie Mellon:
  • - The most Daubert-like: BrownBrown
  • - Methodology or Substance?
  • Is Carnegie Mellon so dumb? Why did they bring this case, and fight it? [Biology experts please help!]
  • - The experts aside from Brown
  • Sorkin: Why proffer such a lame declaration as Trejo’s?
  • Pharmastem: Ditto on Hendrix? (But the answer will be different, I think.)

Week 7

slide13
UCBerkeley v Genentech Transcripts
  • Siegel – Tutorial Expert
  • Campbell – Genentech’s Infringement Expert
  • What you learn from reading these transcripts
  • Order of Testimony
  • Preparing
  • Objecting
  • Cross-Examining

Week 7

slide15

http://www.stanford.edu/~rjmorris/sciev/READINGS/4363877A.pdfhttp://www.stanford.edu/~rjmorris/sciev/READINGS/4363877A.pdf

Week 7

slide16

Goodman Patent (UCBerkeley v Genentech) 4,363,877, col. 33-34.

Week 7

slide17

to?

Week 7

slide18

Leftovers from past weeks

- Looking at other patents collected by the grad students

- Instant Patent Law & Instant Civil Procedure

Feedback: On this set of comments and comment^2s

MEETINGS NEXT WEEK?

Evaluations

Week 7

ad