<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>BullsEye Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog</link>
	<description>A legal blog on expert witness topics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 16:42:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Social Media &amp; the Law &#8211; Beyond Big Brother?</title>
		<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/social-media-law-big-brother/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/social-media-law-big-brother/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 16:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=3346</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s safe to say the transformation is complete – attorneys, courts, and the legal industry have finally gotten the message – no pun intended. The new challenge isn’t to convince the legal field of a need to embrace social media, but rather solving the growing number of legal and ethical dilemmas spawned by the fact that social media and the <a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/social-media-law-big-brother/'>[more]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/social-media-law-big-brother/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Damages Expert … No Relief?</title>
		<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/no-damages-expert-no-relief/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/no-damages-expert-no-relief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 14:41:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expert Witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[permanent injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable royalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Judgment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=3303</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is expert evidence required to prove a reasonable royalty damages award? A New Jersey federal court delivered a cautionary ruling for the patent infringement practitioner, perhaps underscoring the following: Although expert evidence is not specifically required for a reasonable royalty damage claim, don’t underestimate the value of utilizing expert evidence to establish reasonable royalty damages or the importance of otherwise <a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/no-damages-expert-no-relief/'>[more]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/no-damages-expert-no-relief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Surviving a &#8220;Gatekeeping&#8221; Challenge – Expert Rulings Shed Light</title>
		<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/surviving-a-gatekeeping-challenge-expert-rulings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/surviving-a-gatekeeping-challenge-expert-rulings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:02:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daubert / Frye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daubert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Rule of Evidence 702]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gatekeeping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rulings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=3273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week we bring you two fresh district court rulings involving experts who survived “gatekeeping” admissibility challenges under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. The rulings serve as a reminder that FRE 702 can embrace a liberal standard of admissibility of expert testimony, depending on the case and the nature of the expert evidence required. In many cases, as <a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/surviving-a-gatekeeping-challenge-expert-rulings/'>[more]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/surviving-a-gatekeeping-challenge-expert-rulings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consulting Experts – The Danger of Discovery</title>
		<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/consulting-experts-discovery/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/consulting-experts-discovery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consulting expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expert Witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FRCP 26]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-testifying expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testifying expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work-product privilege]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=3220</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When, if ever, is initial expert consulting work performed by assistants to a testifying expert in danger of being subject to discovery by an opposing party? Wait – you say – the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure protect against another party’s discovery of consulting experts retained in anticipation of litigation who are not expected to be called at trial. But <a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/consulting-experts-discovery/'>[more]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/consulting-experts-discovery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Once Again, SCOTUS Skirts Expert Issue for Class Actions</title>
		<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/scotus-skirts-expert-issue/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/scotus-skirts-expert-issue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:30:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Ambrogi, Contributing Author</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daubert / Frye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Ambrogi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daubert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 23]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 702]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=3200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK, this time we thought for sure the Supreme Court would give us a decisive ruling on the extent to which a trial court must vet an expert witness under the Daubert standard prior to certification of a class action. We had thought that before, of course. We were sure the court would decide the Daubert issue in its 2011 <a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/scotus-skirts-expert-issue/'>[more]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/scotus-skirts-expert-issue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$300 Million Reasonable Royalty Damages Claim Falls to Daubert</title>
		<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/reasonable-royalty-damages-daubert/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/reasonable-royalty-damages-daubert/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:12:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daubert / Frye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daubert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable royalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reliable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=3166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently addressed a costly expert issue involving damages in a patent infringement case:  Whether expert testimony which relies solely on a prior settlement agreement as a basis for proving reasonable royalty damages is reliable and therefore admissible under the established law of Daubert and FRE 702. The opinion, which involved reasonable <a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/reasonable-royalty-damages-daubert/'>[more]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/reasonable-royalty-damages-daubert/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Gives Go-Ahead to Securities-Fraud Plaintiffs</title>
		<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/supreme-court-securities-fraud/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/supreme-court-securities-fraud/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:10:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amgen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[certification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud on the market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[omissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=3127</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a sharply divided opinion issued February 27th, the U.S. Supreme Court did something a little unusual as of late – it gave the green light to plaintiffs seeking class certification in a securities-fraud class action. In its ruling, the Court addressed a question it seems intent on revisiting these days – the extent and relevance of merits inquiries required <a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/supreme-court-securities-fraud/'>[more]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/supreme-court-securities-fraud/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PTAB Poised as Major Patent Player?  Or Prove Too Risky…</title>
		<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/ptab-major-patent-player/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/ptab-major-patent-player/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[final rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent and Trial Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uspto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=3083</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will the USPTO’s Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) become a major patent reform player, improving administrative efficiencies, streamlining the patent process, and creating cost effective litigation alternatives as it was purposed to do? Will it offer solutions to the overburdened patent process? Or will patent litigation attorneys and their clients shy away from it, fearful of underlying uncertainties in <a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/ptab-major-patent-player/'>[more]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/ptab-major-patent-player/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Recent Cases Underscore Daubert’s Flexibility</title>
		<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/cases-underscore-daubert-flexibility/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/cases-underscore-daubert-flexibility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Ambrogi, Contributing Author</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daubert / Frye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Ambrogi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appellate ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daubert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Rule of Evidence 702]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flexible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientific methodology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=3064</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Daubert standard requires that expert testimony be reliable in order to be admissible. But reliable is not the same as right, two recent federal circuit opinions remind us. The judge’s role is not to determine whether an expert’s testimony is correct, but only whether it is admissible, these opinions say. In their facts, the two cases are as different <a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/cases-underscore-daubert-flexibility/'>[more]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/cases-underscore-daubert-flexibility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oopsy Dixit:  Expert Witness Challenges</title>
		<link>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/oopsy-dixit-expert-witness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/oopsy-dixit-expert-witness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:14:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Tamburro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daubert / Frye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Experts 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maggie Tamburro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rulings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appellate ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expert Witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert witness challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ipse dixit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oopsy dixit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/?p=3032</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We make it our business to expound on all things expert, with the goal of keeping you abreast of the most current expert information you need to prevail in your cases. With that in mind, we’d like to introduce to you Oopsy Dixit: Expert Witness Challenges. In this BullsEye feature, we’ll share with you short, timely appellate rulings involving expert <a href='http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/oopsy-dixit-expert-witness/'>[more]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/2013/oopsy-dixit-expert-witness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
