`
`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