A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: motion-in-limine

Last week, Judge Andrews addressed a serious of motions in limine in Astrazeneca AB v. Zydus Pharms. (USA) Inc., C.A. No. 18-664-RGA (D. Del.). These rulings are often interesting; here, Judge Andrews excluded some former expert testimony as hearsay, rejecting the idea that the testimony was a party admission:

Defendant seeks to exclude testimony and evidence that relate to positions it and its experts took in relation to the patent-in-suit (as prior art) in District of New Jersey litigation involving other patents. . . . The evidence, which is described as trial transcripts, expert reports, invalidity contentions, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and “support documents” (consisting altogether of about fourteen proposed exhibits) is …

Arrows on Sign
Adrià Tormo, Unsplash

In another ruling from the In Re ChanBond litigation as it approaches trial, Judge Andrews today issued an in-depth opinion granting a motion in limine to exclude reference to prior expert testimony from a related IPR proceeding, on the grounds that the testimony is hearsay.

Plaintiff sought to admit the material as former testimony under FRE 804(b)(1), because it is helpful to its infringement case. The rule requires, however, that the former testimony was offered against the parties' predecessor who had "an opportunity and similar motive to develop it."

Here, Judge Andrews found that an IPR petitioner's motive in developing expert testimony to show invalidity is different from a defendant's motive developing its non-infringement position:

I …

Unusually Spry Expert Rushes to Supplement Report
Unusually Spry Expert Rushes to Supplement Report Man Holding Handbag, Andy Beales, Unsplash

Judge Andrews recently granted a motion in limine precluding a party from presenting expert opinions that were not disclosed until the expert's deposition -- without analyzing the Pennypack factors.

The correct procedure for challenging a late disclosure of theories or evidence has long been a matter of some debate in Delaware. There are cases suggesting that the party seeking to update its contentions should move for leave to do.

More commonly, a party will simply serve updated contentions or expert reports that the opposing party moves to strike. Regardless, the motions are generally analyzed under the demanding Pennypack factors, with the usual result that the …