Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., Ltd. et al
Judge Mark L. Wolf: AMENDED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(Franklin, Yvonne)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CELLTRION HEALTHCARE CO.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (AMENDED AS TO FOOTNOTE 1)
February 6, 2017
At the hearings on February 7 and 8, 2017, the court intends
to have the parties address first defendants' motion to exclude
the testimony of Drs. Wurm and Butler (Docket No, 339) and next
plaintiff's motion to limit the testimony of Dr. Glacken (Docket
As previously discussed,
rather than the
experts, will instruct the jury on the law, including providing
understanding any admissible expert testimony.
As the parties
recognize, an expert will not be permitted to provide the jury an
opinion as to legal standards.
See, e.g., Marx & Co. v. Diners'
opinion based on an erroneous understanding of the law will be
excluded because it would not be helpful to the jury.
See Fed. R.
The parties shall be prepared to address how these
standards apply to the proposed testimony of each of the experts.
In addition, to admit expert testimony, the court must find,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), that it is more likely
than not that the expert's methods are reliable and that they have
been reliably applied to the relevant evidence.
methods are linked to each of the expert's opinions.
43 F.3d 1311,
Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717,
1994); Heller v. Shaw,
167 F.3d 146 (3rd Cir. 1999);
161 F.3d 77,
1998); Salzburg et al.
Federal Rules of Evidence Manual (11th Ed.) §702.02.
shall also be prepared to discuss these principles and cases.^
^ The parties shall particularly be prepared to discuss whether
Dr. Wurm's test results provide Dr. Butler and him with a reliable
basis from which to conclude that the ingredients of the accused
powders, in their allegedly equivalent concentrations, perform
substantially the same function in the accused powders as they do
in the patented invention. See Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products
Group, Inc., 639 F. 3d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 2011); Intendis GmbH v.
Glenmark Pharma Inc., 822 F. 3d 1355, 1360-61 (Fed, Cir. 2016).
More specifically, they shall be prepared to address whether Drs.
Wurm and Butler employed scientifically sound and methodologically
reliable methods in reaching their conclusions that the 29
ingredients that Dr. Wurm added to the claimed powders did not
mask large differences in Dr. Wurm's comparisons by performing
ingredients. See Milward, 639 F.3d at 15; Ruiz-Troche, 161 F.3d at
In addition, the parties shall be prepared to inform the court
of the availability of their respective experts for voir dire, if
necessary, during the week of February 20, 2017.
After hearing argument on the motions in limine concerning
the court intends to address the questions of the
proper measure of damages and the propriety of injunctive relief
if plaintiffs prevail at trial.
With regard to defendants' recent
contention that plaintiffs lack standing and, therefore, the court
does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the court discerns an
issue the parties have not addressed.
Even if Janssen's failure to join one of the inventors of the
in its 2015 suit was a
standing, the Federal Circuit has held that parties can cure such
a defect by joining the absent party.
The Federal Circuit has
permitted parties to do so either with the party's consent under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 or,
in certain circumstances,
involuntarily under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
Inc. v. Med. Device All.,
(Fed. Cir. 2001)/ STC.ONM v.
Inc., 240 F.3d 1016, 1017-
754 F.3d 940,
Although more difficult to parse, the proposed testimony
of Dr. Glacken raises many similar issues concerning how, if at
all, his methodology is linked to many of his conclusions.
parties should be prepared to discuss these issues as well.
(Fed. Cir. 2014). With regard to involuntary joinder under Rule
19, while the Federal Circuit has recently held that, as a general
rule, a co-owner cannot be made an involuntary plaintiff under
Rule 19(a), it has recognized two exceptions to this general rule.
^ STC.ONM, 754 F.3d at 946. One of these exceptions is when the
absent party is obligated by contract to join the infringement
ordinarily, at least, an amendment adding a new plaintiff
would relate bac)c to the date of the filing of the original
complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c); Bllied Tnternational, Inc.
V. International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, 814 F.2d 32,
35-6 (1st Cir. 1987). The parties should be prepared to address
whether such an amendment would resolve, or moot, the issue
whether plaintiffs' failure to join Mr. Horowitz initially
preclude them from seelcing lost profits under 35 U.S.C.
After the argument concerning damages, the court will hear
further argument on Hospira's motion for summary judgment. The
court will then consider the disputes concerning jury
instructions, the remaining motions in limine, and matters
relating to jury selection and the conduct of the trial.
AS it does not appear likely that all of the foregoing matters
will be resolved on or before February 8, 2017, the court is
considering conducting further hearings the week of February X3,
2017, and beginning trial on February 20, 2017. The parties shall
be prepared to discuss this as well.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?