Robert Ambrogi, Contributing Author

Bob Ambrogi is the only person to hold the top editorial positions at both the National Law Journal and Lawyers Weekly USA. In addition, he formerly served as director of the Litigation Services division at American Lawyer Media. He is an experience attorney, ADR professional, writer and legal technologist.

The Supreme Court has issued a new patent law opinion that could signal a greater need for expert testimony in patent-related civil actions in federal district courts. Continue reading »

Lawyers are always on the lookout for grounds to challenge their opponents’ expert witnesses. Imagine if those very experts would help you find their Achilles’ heels, sending up red flags that alerted you to their vulnerabilities. Well, maybe they already do. All you need is to know what to look for. Continue reading »

When an expert has a change of mind about his or her own opinion, what does it mean to the case? A recent decision from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sheds new light on this recurring question. The issue is one that comes up with surprising regularity, sometimes with dramatic consequences. Continue reading »

Who would have thought that a visit to Wal-Mart would turn into a lesson in the use of expert evidence at trial? But that is exactly what happened to Bonnie Rodrick when she visited a Wal-Mart in Maryville, Mo., and tripped on a rug, fracturing her hip. Continue reading »

A mystery of American jurisprudence is the denial of certiorari. This is when the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear an appeal – known as a petition for certiorari. The mystery is that the court provides no explanation for its denial. And, as the court itself has said, its denial “imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.” In other words, denial of certiorari is neither an endorsement nor a rejection of the lower court’s ruling.

It is precisely that problem – the problem of not knowing what the Supreme Court thinks – that has many defense lawyers reeling after the court denied certiorari in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Milward on Jan. 9. Continue reading »

Courts in recent years have struggled with determining the correct standard to apply to expert testimony pertaining to class certification. Is a full Daubert hearing required at this stage or something less? The question has divided the circuits and seemed headed for an answer from the Supreme Court until the court sidestepped the issue in its 2011 opinion, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes. Continue reading »

For litigation professionals, 2012 is already shaping up to be a year of “more” – more lawsuits, more regulatory investigations, more discovery disputes and more demand for experts in a range of specializations. The one area where “less” will predominate will be in spending, as corporate clients continue efforts to rein in legal spending.

We have no crystal ball, but based on our analysis of trends, we offer these 10 predictions for how litigation will play out over the coming year. Continue reading »

Using “junk science” in litigation can cost you. A medical device company learned that lesson the hard way earlier this month, when the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a $4.7 million award of attorney and expert witness fees against the company for filing a baseless patent infringement lawsuit and for relying on expert testimony that failed to meet the legal requirements for scientific reliability. Continue reading »

Two Supreme Court opinions top our annual list of the year’s most important cases involving expert witnesses. While one of the Supreme Court cases makes the list for what the court did, the other is included for what the court did not do.

Also on the list are two Federal Circuit cases that provide further guidance for attorneys and experts in patent litigation, two circuit cases that push the boundaries of Daubert, a mass-tort case right out of a John Grisham novel, and even a case from across the pond that is causing ripples here in the U.S.

As always, we welcome your feedback. Let us know what you think of our picks and of any cases you believe should be listed here. Continue reading »

As we mentioned earlier, many attorneys have turned to iPads to prepare and question experts. Talk to trial attorneys about the apps that enable them to use their iPads in trials and depositions, and you hear a few names repeated over and over again. Among the apps attorneys most often mention are these: Continue reading »

© 2011 BullsEye All Rights Reserved Published by IMS ExpertServices