In Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis Inc., C.A. No. 14-1381-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 8, 2017), Judge Andrews granted one, and denied two, pretrial motions in limine brought by the defendants and denied another filed by the plaintiffs. The Court granted the defendants’ motion in limine prohibiting the plaintiffs’ expert from testifying to commercial success and long-felt need, as neither was addressed previously by the expert. Judge Andrews denied the defendants’ motion seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from presenting evidence on an earlier invention date than the invention date the plaintiffs had agreed to in another litigation. With respect to the plaintiffs’ motion in limine, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ fact witness had nothing relevant to offer and that the testimony would prejudice the plaintiffs. Judge Andrews disagreed and found that the balance of the Pennypack factors did not weigh in favor of excluding an irrelevant witness whose “irrelevant” testimony would be on the clock in a timed trial.
Key Points: The relevance of fact testimony may not be the strongest ground for exclusion of such testimony in a timed trial before Judge Andrews.