In Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-674-RGA and Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-422-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 26, 2015), Judge Richard G. Andrews ruled on several motions in limine related to the parties’ expert testimony.
The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude Defendants’ invalidity expert who relied on the expert reports of other of experts in forming his obviousness opinion. The Court concluded the opinion “lack[ed] reasoning or analysis” and was “needlessly cumulative,” and excluded the testimony under FRE 403. Id. at 2.
The Court denied Defendants’ motion to preclude Plaintiffs’ validity expert from relying on certain post-dated references that could show that “drug content uniformity was a problem in the field at the time of the invention,” arguing it was hearsay. Id. The Court allowed reliance on the references as either not hearsay or something experts in the field would reasonably rely on in forming an opinion (and thus allowable under FRE 703). Id. at 2-3. The Court also held that the references were relevant and that Defendants’ objections to the expert’s reliance on them went to weight, rather than admissibility.
Finally, the Court denied one of the defendant’s motion to preclude Plaintiffs from relying on certain “partitioning” infringement analysis, explaining that the motion “raise[d] questions appropriate for the trier of fact.”