`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, SANOFI(cid:173)
`A VENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 14-113-RGA
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine. (D.I. 271-15, 271-16). For the
`
`reasons stated below, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine #1, concerning Dr. Ochoa's noninfringement opinions, is
`
`DENIED as moot. As discussed at the pretrial conference, Lilly will confine its
`
`arguments regarding noninfringement of the asserted device patents to the claim
`
`limitations set forth in its Statement of Contested Facts filed with the proposed pretrial
`
`order. (D.I. 271-3 at 19-21). The noninfringement opinions to which Plaintiffs object
`
`depend on claim limitations that Lilly will not assert at trial. Thus, Plaintiffs' motion is
`
`moot.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine #2, concerning Dr. White's testimony, is DENIED.
`
`Pursuant to their duty to disclose expert testimony, parties must submit a written report
`
`prepared and signed by each of their testifying expert witnesses. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`1
`
`
`
`. ..
`
`If\
`Case 1:14-cv-00113-RGA-MPT Document 275 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 9294
`
`26(a)(2)(B). The report must contain, inter alia, "a complete statement of all opinions
`
`the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them[ and] the facts or data
`
`considered by the witness in forming them." Id.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to comply with its disclosure obligation
`
`because Dr. White relied on figures not disclosed in his written report. (D.I. 271-18 at 2-
`
`3). Plaintiffs contend that Dr. White admitted during his deposition that he relied on
`
`undisclosed graphs or figures. (Id. at 3). Defendant responds that all figures on which
`
`Dr. White relied were within the Chemir data produced by Plaintiffs and that Dr. White's
`
`reliance on the Chemir data was disclosed in his expert report. (D.I. 271-19 at 4).
`
`Further, Defendant argues and Plaintiffs concede that Dr. White never stated that he
`
`formed any particular opinion on the basis ofa figure not disclosed in his report. I
`
`conclude that Defendant did not fail to disclose figures upon which Dr. White relied.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that Dr. White's deposition testimony demonstrates that he also
`
`relied on undisclosed publications. (D.I. 271-18 at 2-3). Defendant responds that all
`
`publications on which Dr. White relied were disclosed in his expert report either
`
`specifically or as "materials considered" by Plaintiffs' experts. (Id. at 5). Because it was
`
`unclear from the deposition transcript whether Dr. White relied on undisclosed
`
`publications, I ordered Defendant to submit a declaration by Dr. White clarifying what he
`
`meant when he said he considered "additional publications." Dr. White's Declaration
`
`explains that during the deposition he "was not thinking about any actual publication
`
`considered in forming [his] opinions which had not been disclosed." (D.I. 274-1 at 2).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00113-RGA-MPT Document 275 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 9295
`
`I therefore conclude that Defendant did not fail to disclose publications upon which Dr.
`
`White relied.
`
`Entered this J) day of September, 2015.
`
`3
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
