In Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., Case No. 2023-1627 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2024), the Federal Circuit addressed whether expert witnesses must have acquired skill in the relevant art at the time of invention to qualify as a “person of ordinary skill in the art.” The case concerned 3D imaging systems produced by the appellant, Planmeca, which the jury found had infringed patents for orthopedic imaging systems owned by the appellee, Osseo. The district court denied Planmeca’s motions for judgment as a matter of law as to invalidity and noninfringement, and rejected Planmeca’s argument that Osseo’s expert testimony should be disregarded because the expert had not acquired the requisite experience until 8 to 10 years after the alleged date of invention. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law, and declined to add Planmeca’s proposed timing requirement, explaining that case law only requires an expert at a minimum to possess ordinary skill in the art. The Court also found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict.
