Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Evidence of Prior Art References If the Court, as factfinder, does not find Morrison's testimony to be convincing, or if the basis for any of his conclusions is lacking, then his testimony can be found to be not credible. In permitting Morrison to testify, the Court makes no determination at this time regarding this witnesses' credibility. As such, the Court shall deny Plaintiffs' motion. In this light, the Court has reviewed the materials submitted by Defendants and finds that Defendants have shown that Morrison satisfies the three requirements noted above. Rather, Defendants state that they intend to proffer Morrison to testify about the "expectations of the vis-á-vis representations made by Zydus …, and whether the FDA would accept certain conclusions reached by Plaintiffs' infringement expert…" Def. However, as Defendants state, they are not proffering Morrison to testify or opine "on the intricacies of the chemistry underlying the claims at issue, or even patent invalidity." Def. ![]() Plaintiffs' argument in support of its motion centers on its assertions that Morrison is not qualified to testify because he is not one skilled in the relevant art and, therefore, cannot opine on infringement and invalidity. The burden of meeting these elements, and of showing that "good grounds" exist for the expert's opinion, lies with the proponent. In making this determination, the Court undertakes a three-pronged inquiry: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert in a particular field (2) the methodology applied by the witness is sufficiently reliable and (3) the witness's testimony "fits" the facts of the case in dispute-that is, the proffered testimony would assist the trier of fact. "Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a trial judge acts as a 'gatekeeper' to ensure that 'any and all expert testimony or evidence is not only relevant, but also reliable.'" Pineda v. If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.įed. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony and states: Plaintiffs move to preclude the testimony of Defendants' expert witness James Morrison, a former employee of the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") who was employed with the agency for nearly 40 years. Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Expert James Morrison Presently before the Court are the parties' motions in limine. Trial is scheduled to begin on March 26, 2013. ![]() and Cadila Healthcare Limited (together, "Defendants") claiming infringement of the following patents alleged to cover Takeda's Prevacid SoluTab product ("SoluTab"): U.S. ("Ethypharm," together with Takeda, "Plaintiffs") bring this Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action against defendants Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. Plaintiffs Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., (collectively, "Takeda") and Ethypharm, S.A.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |