KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC vs. CEPHALON, INC., ET AL

Filing 862

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE OPINIONS OF GREGORY BELL AND DIRECT PURSCHASER CLASS PLAINTIFFS DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS AND PROPOSED TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS JERRY HAUSMAN AND EDWARD SNYDER ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 10/5/15. 10/5/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(jl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

______________________________________________________________________________
:
KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC., :
CIVIL ACTION
et al.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
No. 2:06-cv-1797
:
CEPHALON, INC., et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :__________________________________
:
VISTA HEALTHPLAN, INC., et al.,
:
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
No. 2:06-cv-1833
:
CEPHALON, INC., et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :__________________________________
:
APOTEX, INC.,
:
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
No. 2:06-cv-2768
:
CEPHALON, INC., et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :___________________________________

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2015, upon consideration of “Plaintiffs’ Daubert
Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Gregory K. Bell” (Dkt. No. 06-1797, Doc. No. 605; Dkt. No.
06-1833, Doc. No. 311), which has been joined by Apotex (See Dkt. No. 06-2768, Doc. No.
697), and upon consideration of “Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude
Certain Opinions and Proposed Trial Testimony of Defendants’ Experts Jerry Hausman and
1

Edward A. Snyder” (Dkt. No. 06-1797, Doc. No. 611), which has been joined by the End Payor
Class Plaintiffs and Apotex (See Dkt. No. 06-1833, Doc. No. 298; Dkt. No. 06-2768, Doc. No.
697), the responses and replies thereto, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying
memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ joint motion is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part, such that:
— The motion is granted with respect to Bell, Hausman and Snyder’s opinions that
resolution of Cephalon’s litigation uncertainty constitutes a procompetitive justification
for the reverse-payment settlements;
— The motion is granted with respect to Edward A. Snyder’s opinion that “Generic
manufacturers also realized the importance of potential generic entry, and considered
necessary contingency plans,” as this provides impermissible expert testimony on a
party’s state of mind;
— The motion is granted by agreement with respect to Edward A. Snyder’s opinions
regarding the scope of the patent framework;
— Plaintiffs’ challenges to opinions that necessarily assume the validity of the RE ‘516
patent are held in abeyance and will be addressed by a later opinion; and
— The motion is denied in all other respects.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
______________________________
Mitchell S. Goldberg, J.

2