In a series of related actions, Judge Richard G. Andrews considered and denied Plaintiff’s Daubert motion to exclude Defendants’ expert as well as Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., C.A. No. 14-1043-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2016, amended Aug. 25, 2016).
The Court denied the motions without prejudice to the parties’ renewing their objections to the expert testimony at trial, and made additional specific observations regarding these motions. First, as to Defendants’ expert, the Court expected the expert would be able to testify about whether a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make a certain decision, explaining that “[s]imply because he could not identify where all his data came from at deposition does not mean he will be unable to do so at trial.” Id. at 1. But the Court was “dubious” as to whether Defendants could succeed on certain of their invalidity theories. Id. As to Plaintiff’s expert, the Court did not anticipate that he would have to conduct independent studies in order to opine on obviousness to combine. Id. at 2. Further, the Court disagreed that the expert misstated the applicable law at his deposition, but “even if he did, that is not a reason to exclude his trial testimony.” Id. at 2-3.