Key Points: It is particularly difficult to convince the Court to exclude wholesale testimony and evidence prior to a bench trial. The defendants were afforded the opportunity to question the witness about the changes in a subsequent deposition, and would have the opportunity to raise the contradictory testimony at trial. Despite the heavy burden the defendants would have to establish such a defense at trial, the Court could not reject the defense prior to trial with the evidence presented.įinally, Chief Judge Stark denied the defendants’ motion in limine to strike entries of the deposition errata of one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. A Motion in Limine appears to be the means by which a party may seek to either exclude scientific evidence or to have the court require a Porter hearing as to. Moreover, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to preclude defendant Ezra Ventures, LLC from presenting its double-patenting defense, commenting that the plaintiffs failed to point to particular evidence for the Court to exclude. They should then carefully consider pairing Daubert and summary judgment motions when exclusion of an experts proffered testimony will be case or claim. The Court left the door open for the plaintiffs to raise their concerns during cross-examination.Ĭhief Judge Stark also denied the plaintiffs’ motion in limine to prohibit the presentation of evidence or argument on the “breadth of unasserted claims” and the plaintiffs’ motion to prevent the defendants from offering evidence of the quantity of the inventors’ experimentation. Chief Judge Stark noted that the plaintiffs did not take issue with the recitations of law in the experts’ reports-recitations that did not apply a commercial-use standard-and found that the reports revealed that the experts did consider each asserted claim separately. The plaintiffs argued that the doctors’ opinions were based on an incorrect commercial-use standard for enablement and that the doctors failed to analyze each asserted claim separately. The Court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Drs. John Kornak’s relevant technical expertise as well as his regular consultations with members of research teams evaluating drug treatment efficacy to conclude that he qualified as an expert. Motions in limine concerning expert witness testimony, which are known as Daubert motions, can seek to limit or exclude expert testimony that is not supported by sufficient facts or data, not based on reliable principles or methods, or not relevant to the issues on trial. Specifically, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of the defendants’ biostatistician expert, noting that his “skill, experience, training, and education are likely to assist the trier of fact” despite the plaintiffs’ argument that the expert did not meet “either parties’ proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” The Court pointed to Dr. 17, 2017), Chief Judge Stark issued decisions on the parties’ proposed pretrial order, various motions in limine, Daubert motions and motions for summary judgment. Chief Judge Stark Issues Decisions on Multiple Daubert Motions and Motions in Limine
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |