Summary
finding patent application did not qualify as prior judicial proceeding
Summary of this case from Eakin Enters., Inc. v. Specialty Sales LLCOpinion
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued and Submitted May 3, 1995.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Guam, Appellate Division, No. CV-92-00064-ARM; Unpingco, Munson, and Rafeedie, Judges, Presiding.
D. Guam, 1993 WL 470426.
AFFIRMED.
Before: PREGERSON, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed. The record shows that the trial court gave an adequate instruction on legal causation in the second phase of the trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Barry Castleman, who wrote a book on the subject at issue, to testify as an expert for the plaintiff. Finally, the trial court did not err in affirming the punitive damages award. The court conducted the review necessary to satisfy the requirements of due process.
AFFIRMED.
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Because the trial court's instructions were defective in that they did not require the jury to find a causal link between the claimed defect and Brennan's injury, I would reverse. I would also reverse because Barry Castleman was not qualified to testify as an expert on the medical state of the art or anything else; he appears to have read a number of articles for the sole purpose of turning himself into an expert witness. Reductio ad absurdum.