Contentions & Expert Reports: A Match Made in [Someplace]
November 9, 2023, 12:42 PM
By: Ted Mathias
282The interplay between contentions and expert reports in a patent case always requires considered judgment. The common sense rule that an expert may “expand on” but not “deviate from” a party's contentions is easy to say but at times more difficult to practice. The role of an expert plainly is not to simply parrot contentions drafted by the attorneys. But contentions are supposed to provide notice of a party's arguments, and that notice function would cease to exist if expert reports were not meaningfully limited by the disclosures in a party's contentions.
Judge Dein determined in Cozy, Inc. v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., No. 21-10134-JGD (D. Mass. Nov. 6, 2023), that Cozy's expert had provided a new infringement theory rather than simply “specif[ying] the application of a disclosed theory.” Cozy did its expert no favors. It successfully sought leave to amend its supplemental contentions to avoid having “the expert reports[] read completely different from the contentions served during discovery.” But it then tried to serve another round of contentions, which the court denied. Given that procedural history, Cozy's expert plainly could not “rewrit[e] Cozy's contentions so that they bear little resemblance to the [permitted] contentions. ”Nor could he “redefine[] the claim limitations of the Asserted Patents in a manner that changes the nature of Cozy's infringement theories.” The court ruled that the expert did both.
Cozy argued that the expert was required to (and did) incorporate the court's claim constructions. The court agreed that those constructions are “controlling” but nevertheless “do not give plaintiff license to alter its infringement theories without court approval of amendments to its infringement contentions.”
Cozy has leave to submit a new report. The big question is whether it can stick to its prior contentions and still present a viable infringement claim.
As Cozy argued (successfully) in connection with its motion to amend its infringement contentions in order to assert the SSPI Contentions,“[a]t the end of the day, the goal is that when we arrive at expert discovery, we do not want the expert reports to read completely different from the contentions served during discovery. - Cozy, Inc. v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., No. 21-10134-JGD (D. Mass. Nov. 6, 2023)
To subscribe to our publications, click here.
News & Insights
News & Insights
IPWatchdog Sixth Annual Live Conference
Speaking Engagement
Intellectual Property
ABA White Collar Crime Institute 2026
Speaking Engagement
GCR Live Cartels: 2026
Speaking Engagement
Antitrust
SCCE 14th Annual European Compliance & Ethics Institute
Speaking Engagement
Antitrust
Noerr Competition Day 2026
Speaking Engagement
Antitrust
Axinn Antitrust Insight: "New" HSR Form Remains in Effect For Now – Fifth Circuit Temporarily Freezes District Court Order that Vacated the New HSR Rule
Axinn Viewpoints
Antitrust
Consumer Brands CPG Legal Forum 2026
Speaking Engagement
NBA CLS 39th Annual Corporate Counsel Conference
Sponsorship
Antitrust
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law Annual Symposium 2026
Speaking Engagement
Antitrust
Chambers Recognizes Axinn’s Antitrust Practice in 2026 Global Rankings — With New Recognition in Cartel Category
Awards & Recognitions
Antitrust

