Judge Richard G. Andrews recently denied defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert from testifying at a bench trial regarding nonobviousness. Sanofi, et al. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, et al., No. 14-264-RGA (D. Del. May 12, 2016). Judge Andrews first noted that the “gate-keeper function” of a trial judge is not as important when a judge, rather than a jury, is the trier of fact. Id. at 1. In support of their motion, defendants argued that plaintiffs’ expert was not a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) and, therefore, could not “opine as to whether the E/A post-hoc analyses would lead a POSA to reasonably expect that dronedarone would reduce cardiovascular hospitalization.” Id. at 2. Judge Andrews disagreed because plaintiffs’ expert had “technical expertise on a relevant aspect of the pertinent art” and was qualified “to testify on how medical professionals interpret clinical trial data.” Id. Defendants also argued that the expert’s testimony would be duplicative of the testimony of another of plaintiffs’ experts. Id. at 3. Judge Andrews noted that while the Court does not permit duplicative testimony from experts, defendants can make an appropriate objection at trial, and, therefore, denied defendants’ motion without prejudice to renew upon a properly preserved objection. Id.