Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Watson Laboratories Inc. et al

Filing 380

MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 12/16/2015. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

RECKITT BENCKISER
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., RB
PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, and
MONOSOL RX, LLC,
Civil Action No. 13-1674-RGA

Plaintiffs,

v.
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. and
ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.,
Defendants.

RECKITT BENCKISER
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., RB
PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, and
MONOSOL RX, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 14-422-RGA

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. and
INTELGENX TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
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.1. 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.1. 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 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 Jn 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

th-

day of December, 2015.

~&~
2