Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Tinnus Enterprises, LCC v. Telebrands Corp.

Area of Law:

Patent Law. Plaintiffs filed the instant action against Defendants alleging patent infringement.

Grounds:

Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude opinions of Dr. Ken Kamrin, Defendants’ technical expert, on objective indicia of non-obviousness of the patent-in-suit on ground that: 1) he is unqualified and 2) his opinions are unreliable.

Outcome:

Granted

Analysis:

In their motion, Plaintiffs contended that Dr. Kamrin is not an expert on toys, which are products being accused of infringement, and has no experience or knowledge of the toy industry which would qualify him to provide opinions on secondary indicia of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt need, failure by others, or copying.  Slip op. at 3.  The court stressed that Plaintiffs do not question Dr. Kamrin’s ability to opine on issues of non-infringement or invalidity, but rather challenge his experience with regard to providing testimony on secondary considerations.  Id. at 3-4.  The court noted that Defendants do not point to any expertise of Dr. Karmin regarding commercial aspects of those inquires, and that Dr. Karmin has no industry experience or trained knowledge on what makes a toy successful.  Id. at 4, 5.  The court further stated that Defendants’ significant devotion in their briefing to attacking Plaintiff’s expert’s qualifications and opinions on secondary considerations is irrelevant for purposes of the present motion.  Id. at 6.  Reliability of Dr. Karmin’s testimony was not separately addressed.  The court concluded that Dr. Karmin’s opinions on secondary indicia of non-obviousness would not be helpful to the trier of fact based on his scientific and technical expertise, and granted Plaintiffs’ motion.