Chief Judge Stark Provides “Inclinations” on Post-Trial Motions
August 30, 2017
Publication| Intellectual Property
In GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., C.A. No. 14-878-LPS (D. Del. July 27, 2017), Chief Judge Stark set forth his tentative views of the parties’ potential post-trial motion in a post-trial letter to counsel. The Court hoped that his communication to the parties would “make briefing and resolution of those motions more efficient.”
With respect to the plaintiff’s post-trial motions, the Court explained that it was likely to award pre- and post-judgment interest, and appropriate costs, should any damages award survive motions practice. But Chief Judge Stark stated that he was unlikely to enhance damages based on the jury’s finding of willfulness or to award attorneys’ fees.
As to the defendant’s post-trial motions, the Court was inclined to agree on several points, including that “no jury could reasonably find that 100% of physicians were actually induced to infringe by [the defendant’s] actions” and that “a reasonable juror could not have found that ‘100% of [the plaintiff’s] alleged lost sales were induced by [the defendant].’” As a result, Chief Judge Stark suggested that the defendant might be entitled to some relief from the jury’s damages award. Given his tentative views, Chief Judge Stark ordered that post-trial briefing take place before scheduling a bench trial on equitable estoppel, unpatentable subject matter, indefiniteness, and improper dependency, and allowed for a moderate increase in page limits.
Key Point: Chief Judge Stark looks for ways to streamline post-trial motions and bench trials following jury trials, occasionally with tentative rulings.