ALTANA PHARMA AG v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC
2:04-cv-02355
| D.N.J. | May 14, 2013Background
- Sun moved in limine to exclude Dr. Vellturo's price erosion allocation opinions under Fed. R. Evid. 702/403.
- Sun also moved to preclude Dr. Sullivan from testifying about price erosion as to Sun's actions under 702/403.
- Dr. Vellturo opines 70% of divisible price erosion damages to Teva and 30% to Sun, based on market share of infringing pantoprazole sales.
- Vellturo also uses market-share and market-entry-sequence methodologies to allocate damages.
- Dr. Sullivan opines Teva bears no more than $299 million of price erosion and that Sun's actions caused additional erosion.
- Court analyzes admissibility standards (Rule 702/403) and declines to exclude both experts in limine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Vellturo's allocation method | Vellturo's market-share method is valid and supported by precedent. | Method flawed and relies on questionable assumptions; could confuse the jury. | Denied; flaws not sufficient to exclude at this stage. |
| Admissibility of Sullivan's testimony on Sun's impact | Sullivan offers specialized economic analysis of price erosion and Sun's role. | Testimony lacks specialized basis and would mislead the jury. | Denied; testimony held admissible as helpful and grounded in analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mahurkar Patent Litig., 831 F. Supp. 1354 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (endorsed market-share approach for allocating price erosion damages)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (S. Ct. 1999) (expanded Daubert to non-scientific expert testimony)
- Daubert, 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct. 1993) (gatekeeping function; admissibility depends on reliability and fit)
- In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) (liberal qualification standard; tests reliability under Daubert framework)
- Oddi v. Ford Motor Co., 234 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2000) (admissibility is not high bar; belief in valid reasoning suffices)
- ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2012) (link between facts and conclusions; reliability and fit prerequisites)