I'm a litigation attorney. Here's my analysis:
1st negative: (Defendants' motion granted in part) The Court mostly agrees with Plaintiffs, but also agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs’ experts will not be allowed to express opinions at trial that were not included in their expert reports. Plaintiffs’ experts are prohibited from testifying about the rat and mice studies at trial to the extent they did not rely on those studies in their expert reports.
This makes zero difference to either side. These are just general principles of litigation. An expert cannot testify about a topic at trial if the expert didn't put it in their written report. The Judge is just reiterating what the rules are.
2nd negative:(Plaintiffs' motion denied): "More substantively, the Court agrees with Defendants that while Defendants bear the burden of establishing obviousness by clear and convincing evidence, and that burden never changes, it is easier to carry if Defendants rely on evidence of obviousness that was not presented to the patent office—such as evidence that Dr. Lavin later backed away from key factual assertions he made in the Lavin Declarations.'
This one has some substance. Amarin moved to exclude testimony regarding Dr. Lavin. I don't have that testimony but it is clear to me that it relates to the patent office: what the patent office wss told when the patent was issued, as compared to what the parties now know, about obviousness. In sum, the generics are allowed to present additional evidence of "obviousness" which gives them a higher chance of winning that argument.
3rd negative (Plaintiffs' motion denied): While the Court does not rule today on the proper priority date for the patents in suit, Defendants may make a priority date argument at trial—because the Court sees no good reason to rule to the contrary.
This is another non-issue. No ruling by the Judge. Just reiterating the rules and delaying the decision until trial.
In my overall opinion, not much was gained or lost in the rulings today. Slight advantage to the generics but these are very small topics in the overall scheme of the trial. I'd be hesitant to even say this gives generics a 1% higher chance of winning. This is not pivotal stuff for either side.
