Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Jamp Pharma Corporation

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Jamp Pharma Corporation

The Court exercised its discretion to admit the challenged responding expert reports because the impugned material fell within the permissible scope of responding evidence, Gilead did not demonstrate prejudice from the contested portions in the circumstances, and admitting a brief reply was necessary in the interests of trial fairness to respond to new opinions; accordingly the motions to strike were refused and a short reply was permitted.

Citation
2024 FC 344
Parties
Plaintiffs/moving Parties: GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. and GILEAD SCIENCES CANADA, INC.; Defendant/responding Party: JAMP PHARMA CORPORATION
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / NOC Proceedings / Pre Trial Motion (motions to Strike Responding Expert Evidence and for Leave to File Expert Reply)
Outcome
Motions to strike refused; alternative request to admit expert reply granted; no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Splitting, Reply Evidence, Claim Construction, Infringement, Invalidity
Source Language
English
Patent Law Evidence Civil Procedure Regulatory Law Expert Evidence Case Splitting Reply Evidence Claim Construction +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. and GILEAD SCIENCES CANADA, INC.

Plaintiffs/moving Parties

JAMP PHARMA CORPORATION

Defendant/responding Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / NOC Proceedings / Pre Trial Motion (motions to Strike Responding Expert Evidence and for Leave to File Expert Reply)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether portions of responding expert reports constitute improper case-splitting
  2. 2 Whether responding expert reports are non-responsive or prejudicial given parties' Stipulation
  3. 3 Whether to admit a late expert reply report and the applicable standards for reply evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion to admit the challenged responding expert reports because the impugned material fell within the permissible scope of responding evidence, Gilead did not demonstrate prejudice from the contested portions in the circumstances, and admitting a brief reply was necessary in the interests of trial fairness to respond to new opinions; accordingly the motions to strike were refused and a short reply was permitted.

Court Disposition

Motions to strike refused; alternative request to admit expert reply granted; no costs awarded.

Orders

  • Gilead’s motions to strike the responding expert reports of Drs. ***** and **** are refused.
  • Gilead’s request, in the alternative, to admit the expert reply report of Dr. ****** is granted.