Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sanofi, et al., C.A. No. 14-1317 - SLR, February 18, 2016.

Robinson, J. Untimely reference is precluded. Cross-motions to preclude post-priority evidence relating to written description are granted. Defendants’ motion to strike the reasonable royalty opinion of plaintiff’s expert is granted.  Plaintiff’s motion to strike opinions of defendants’ damages expert is granted in part and denied in part.

The disputed technology is directed to genuses of antibodies. The court excluded a particular handout as untimely since it would take further discovery to flesh out whether it was prior art, the facial indicia being insufficient. It is also cumulative. Both parties filed motions to exclude post-priority date evidence, both of which relate to a written description defense. Given the complexity of the technology and the considerable leeway the court has to determine whether the evidence will assist the jury the court grants both motions. As for the damages experts, the opinion of plaintiff’s expert Dr. Meyer is not stricken. Defendant’s expert Dr. Stevens’ opinions are likewise permitted with the exception of two settlement agreements relating to business agreements too far afield from a bare patent license.