Case Cite

VIIV Healthcare UK Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 11-576-RGA, Slip op. (D. Del. May 30, 2013)

IPDQ Commentary

It’s unclear that this case dealt with damages experts, but it is worth noting. Remember, judges are people, too. Faced with 1,600 pages of appendices in support of a pre-bench trial Daubert motion, the court simply denied the motion. The judge said he’d hear the issues during the trial. A word to the wise: “Educating the court” with excessive filings went out with polyester suits and disco.

Case Summary

Facing a bench trial, Defendants filed a motion seeking to exclude the testimony of three of Plaintiff’s experts for nine reasons. Id., slip op. at 1. In support of the motion, Defendants submitted 1,600 pages of appendices. Id. Plaintiffs argued the matters raised were, inter alia, suitable cross-examination topics. Id.

The court declined to hear oral argument, then denied the motion with leave to raise the issues at trial, saying:

  • “[I]t is inefficient in the extreme to spend hours trying to figure this out in advance of a bench trial in which the likelihood is that the experts are going to testify in any event.” Id., slip op. at 1 – 2.
  • “In addition, live testimony and cross-examination, in the context of the issues actually in dispute at trial, are much more likely to result in a correct decision from me . . . “ Id., slip op. at 2.
  • “Most of what the Defendants have written in their briefs indeed sounds to me like cross-examination material.” Id.