On December 29, 2014, Chief ALJ Bullock issued a Notice To The Parties Regarding Ground Rule 10.5.6 in Certain Hemostatic Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-913.  Judge Bullock’s Notice provides guidance to the parties concerning Ground Rule 10.5.6 relating to expert testimony to assist the parties in motions in limine and high priority objections.  The Notice sets forth two examples of acceptable expert testimony: (1) “An expert opines in his/her expert report that a patent is invalid as obvious and then testifies as to the specific obviousness combinations in his/her witness statement.”; and (2) “An expert states that he/she believes a patent is not infringed and then in his/her testimony sets forth his/her opinions as to why it is not infringed.”; and three examples of improper expert testimony:  (1) “An expert opines in his/her expert report that a patent is invalid under § 102(a) and then testifies that the patent is invalid under both §§ 102(a) and 102(b).  The testimony regarding §102(b) would be deemed improper.”; (2) An expert opines only on validity in his/her expert report and then testifies as to certain non-infringement opinions.  The testimony regarding his/her non-infringement opinions would be deemed improper.”; and (3) “An expert opines in his/her expert report that the asserted claims of a patent are infringed and then testifies that those claims are not only directly infringed, but also infringed under the doctrine of equivalents.  The testimony regarding the doctrine of equivalents would be deemed improper.”