Federal Circuit IP

Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies

By Shawni M. Van Vessem Published April 15, 2026

Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies 

Nos. 2023-2226, 2023-2234 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2026) 

(Prost, Taranto, and Stark) 

 

Issues: Whether the District Court abused its discretion by excluding Barry’s technical expert and survey expert at trial and granting JMOL. 

Holding: Reversed and remanded. The Federal Circuit held the District Court abused its discretion in excluding both experts and erred in granting JMOL. 

Background: 

  • Barry sued DePuy for induced infringement of claims from U.S. Patent Nos. 7,670,358; 8,361,121; and 9,668,787, directed to techniques/tools for treating spinal deformities. 
  • The District Court denied Daubert challenges pretrial, then granted renewed motions during trial and granted JMOL for Depuy. 
  • Barry appealed. 

Federal Circuit’s Analysis: 

1) Exclusion of Yassir (claim construction vs. “application” disputes) 

  • The District Court excluded Yassir because he contradicted the “handle means” construction (“a part that is designed especially to be grasped by the hand”).  
  • The Federal Circuit disagreed. Yassir repeatedly recited the Court’s construction and testified he applied it. The Federal Circuit emphasized that Yassir’s statements (including that multiple parts, or the linked structure, could be “handle means”) reflected a fact dispute about applying the construction to the accused tools, which is for the jury, not a Rule 702 gatekeeping exclusion.  

2) Exclusion of Neal (survey flaws largely go to weight) 

  • The District Court excluded Neal largely based on (i) alleged failure to show a representative sample/universe and (ii) alleged survey design flaws (including terminology and an “anchoring” question). 
  • The Federal Circuit held those criticisms may affect how much weight the jury gives the survey but did not justify wholesale exclusion.  
  • So long as the expert’s testimony rests upon “good grounds,” it should be tested by the adversary process rather than excluded from jurors’ scrutiny. Neal testified to bias reduction features which supported finding the testimony rested on good grounds. 

Dissent (Prost) 

Judge Prost would have affirmed. She emphasized the district court’s gatekeeping duty, citing EcoFactor and the 2023 amendments to Rule 702 requiring the proponent to demonstrate to the court that the expert evidence is reliable. 

Takeaways 

  • Technical expert testimony that “contradicts” claim construction can be excluded, but disputes about “application” usually go to the jury. 
  • Methodological limitations in surveys are addressed through cross examination and contrary evidence, not exclusion.