Judge Andrews Denies Daubert Motion
August 24, 2018
Publication| Intellectual Property
In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, No. 15-1152-RGA (D. Del. July 6, 2018), Judge Andrews denied the plaintiffs’ Daubert motion to exclude testimony of the defendant’s expert. According to the Court, whether the expert was opining beyond the scope of his expertise would be better addressed during trial, since the case would be tried to the bench. Judge Andrews stated that any objections to the expert’s testimony could be made (and preserved) during trial, and any ruling on such objections would be made on the basis of the record admitted at trial. On the merits of the motion itself, Judge Andrews commented that it did not appear to be beyond the scope of an organic chemist’s expertise to comment on the results of a testing method of the type performed by analytical chemists, if it should turn out that organic chemists do in fact interpret such results. Whether others may have greater, more specialized, or more advanced experience in the testing method at issue should not negate a particular expert’s qualification on the basis of experience, according to the Court.
Key Point: The ruling here—that Daubert objections to expert qualifications could be resolved at trial—is consistent with the Court’s practice in bench trials of resolving certain evidentiary issues during trial that, in cases tried to a jury, would otherwise be resolved at or before the pre-trial conference.