Reckitt Benckiser Pharms. Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
December 16, 2015, Decided; December 16, 2015, Filed
Civil Action No. 13-1674-RGA; Civil Action No. 14-422-RGA
Presently before the Court is the Motion in Limine of Plaintiffs Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, and MonoSol Rx, LLC to preclude Defendants Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., IntelGenx Technologies Corp., Watson Laboratories, Inc., and Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. from offering at trial evidence concerning inter partes review of the '832 patent. (D.I. 374-4, 374-5, 374-6). I have also reviewed the parties' responses to my request at the pretrial conference for certain additional information. (D.I. 376, 377). Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
As stated at the pretrial conference, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED with respect to the PTAB's factual findings, decisions, and legal conclusions and DENIED to the extent Defendants will offer statements of an opposing party admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). The remaining part of Plaintiffs' motion concerns documents that would generally fall into the category [*5] of inadmissible hearsay. Unless Defendants have some theory as to why they are admissible, they should not offer them into evidence. On the specific issue raised at the pretrial conference concerning the admissibility of the opinion testimony of Defendants' expert Dr. Bley that relies on the Reitman Declaration, Plaintiffs' request is DENIED without prejudice. The question whether "experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject" is a factual question that is not amenable to resolution at this time. Fed. R. Evid. 703; see In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 748-49 (3d Cir. 1994). Assuming a sufficient foundation is laid, Dr. Bley may testify regarding opinions that rely on Dr. Reitman's pH measurement. Plaintiffs should renew at the appropriate time during trial any objections they want to preserve.
Entered this 16 day of December, 2015.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167982 *
RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS INC., RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, and MONOSOL RX, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. and ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC., Defendants.RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS INC., RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, and MONOSOL RX, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. and INTELGENX TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Defendants.
Prior History: Reckitt Benckiser Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172099 (D. Del., Dec. 12, 2014)