Expert Not Required for Design Patent Infringement Determination

In Kyocera Wireless Company v. President Electronics, LTD, et al. (Fed. Cir.; May 2, 2006), the court concluded that summary judgment on non-infringement of a design patent did not require expoert testimony:

To the extent that Mr. Colida argues that summary judgment was improper without expert testimony, that argument is without merit. The record does not reflect that any of the parties sought to introduce expert evidence, and expert evidence is not always necessary to resolve questions of patent infringement. See, e.g., Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1984). While expert evidence may be necessary in cases involving complex technology, see Centricut, LLC v. Esab Group, Inc., 390 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004), this is not such a case, and Mr. Colida does not explain how expert evidence would have been helpful. Because we find no error in the district court’s disposition of this case, we affirm the judgment below.