Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc
Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky
A recent decision from the Federal Circuit clarifies an important point about expert testimony in patent cases: an expert does not need to have been a “person of ordinary skill in the art” at the exact time of the invention to provide valid testimony. In a dispute between Osseo Imaging, LLC and Planmeca USA Inc. over patents related to 3D dental imaging systems (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,381,301; 6,944,262; and 8,498,374), Planmeca challenged the qualifications of Osseo’s expert, Dr. Omid Kia, arguing that he did not have the required experience in diagnostic imaging until years after the patents’ 1999 priority date.
The court firmly rejected Planmeca’s argument, holding that as long as an expert has acquired the necessary level of skill—even if after the invention date—they can still reliably testify about what a person of ordinary skill would have known at the relevant time. The court reasoned that experts can study the field and reconstruct the knowledge base of the time, and that any timing issues go to the credibility of the expert, not their admissibility. This means that cross-examination, not outright exclusion, is the proper way to address such concerns.
Beyond the expert witness issue, the court also found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Planmeca’s 3D imaging systems infringed Osseo’s patents. The court agreed that the accused systems performed the required steps, such as calculating bone density and merging multiple scans, as claimed in the patents. Additionally, the court upheld the jury’s finding that the patents were not obvious in light of the prior art, noting that Osseo’s expert provided credible reasons why combining certain prior technologies would not have been straightforward.
This decision provides reassurance for patent litigants: Experts who have since gained the relevant expertise can still offer valuable insights, as long as they can reliably speak to the state of the art at the time of invention. The ruling also underscores the importance of thorough cross-examination and the jury’s role in weighing expert credibility.