`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`RECKITT BENCKISER
`PHARMACEUTICALS INC., RB
`PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, and
`MONOSOL RX, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Civil Action No. 13-1674-RGA
`
`v.
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. and
`ACTA VIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`RECKITT BENCKISER
`PHARMACEUTICALS INC., RB
`PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, and
`MONOSOL RX, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. and
`INTELGENX TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 14-422-RGA
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Presently before the Court is the Motion in Limine of Plaintiffs Reckitt Benckiser
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc., RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, and MonoSol Rx, LLC to preclude
`
`Defendants Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., IntelGenx Technologies Corp., Watson Laboratories, Inc.,
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01674-RGA Document 380 Filed 12/16/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 12207
`
`and Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. from offering at trial evidence concerning inter partes review
`
`of the '832 patent. (D.1. 374-4, 374-5, 374-6). I have also reviewed the parties' responses to my
`
`request at the pretrial conference for certain additional information. (D.1. 376, 377). Plaintiffs'
`
`motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
`
`As stated at the pretrial conference, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED with respect to the
`
`PTAB's factual findings, decisions, and legal conclusions and DENIED to the extent Defendants
`
`will offer statements of an opposing party admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). The
`
`remaining part of Plaintiffs' motion concerns documents that would generally fall into the
`
`category of inadmissible hearsay. Unless Defendants have some theory as to why they are
`
`admissible, they should not offer them into evidence. On the specific issue raised at the pretrial
`
`conference concerning the admissibility of the opinion testimony of Defendants' expert Dr. Bley .
`
`that relies on the Reitman Declaration, Plaintiffs' request is DENIED without prejudice. The
`
`question whether "experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or
`
`data in forming an opinion on the subject" is a factual question that is not amenable to resolution
`
`at this time. Fed. R. Evid. 703; see Jn re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 748-49 (3d
`
`Cir. 1994). Assuming a sufficient foundation is laid, Dr. Bley may testify regarding opinions
`
`that rely on Dr. Reitman's pH measurement. Plaintiffs should renew at the appropriate time
`
`during trial any objections they want to preserve.
`
`Entered this th- day of December, 2015.
`~&~
`
`2
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
