Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., et al.

Background

Cyntec alleged that Chilisin infringed Cyntec’s patents. After an earlier trial and a Federal Circuit remand, the parties had represented that no further expert discovery was needed. Cyntec later served supplemental reports from Dr. Kohl and Mr. Van Uden. Cyntec and Chilisin also filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and Cyntec moved to exclude opinions from Chilisin’s expert, John C. Bravman.

Cyntec’s motion to exclude Bravman’s opinions

The court treated Cyntec’s motion as timely because it was filed before the court’s January 16, 2026 deadline for pretrial objections, including motions under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Rule 702 governs when expert testimony is sufficiently reliable and helpful to be admitted.

The court granted Cyntec’s motion to exclude Bravman from testifying about the ultimate legal question of obviousness. The court reasoned that Bravman’s report did not address the objective considerations relevant to that question, including commercial success, long-felt need, failure of others, unexpected results, and copying.

The court also granted Cyntec’s motion to limit Bravman’s primary invalidity references to Shafer and Nakamura, consistent with the Federal Circuit’s remand. Bravman may refer to other prior-art references to explain what was already known and why a skilled person would have been motivated to combine Shafer with Nakamura.

Chilisin’s motion to strike supplemental reports

Chilisin argued that Cyntec’s supplemental reports violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and should be excluded under Rule 37. The court found that Dr. Kohl’s report improperly attempted to strengthen or deepen his earlier rebuttal opinions. The court also found that Mr. Van Uden’s August 13 and August 22, 2025 supplemental reports were untimely because the parties had agreed after remand that no further expert discovery was needed.

Under Rule 37, late-disclosed information generally cannot be used unless the failure to disclose it was substantially justified or harmless. The court found prejudice and surprise to Chilisin, limited ability to cure that prejudice, and a high likelihood of disrupting the upcoming trial. The court did not find that Cyntec acted in bad faith, but explained that bad faith was not required for exclusion. Although the reports could be important, that factor did not outweigh the other considerations.

The court therefore granted Chilisin’s motion to strike Dr. Kohl’s July 28, 2025 supplemental report and Mr. Van Uden’s August 13 and August 22, 2025 supplemental reports under Rule 37. Because it granted the motion under Rule 37, the court did not need to decide the Rule 16 issue and denied Chilisin’s motion to strike the reports under Rule 16.

Disposition

The court granted Cyntec’s motion to exclude Bravman from testifying on the ultimate issue of obviousness and granted the motion to limit his primary invalidity references to Shafer and Nakamura. The court granted Chilisin’s motion to strike the supplemental reports under Rule 37 and denied that motion under Rule 16. The judge’s name is not provided in the opinion.