Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04405/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04405-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLEXXIKON INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04405-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 149, 164, 166, 168, 176, 178, 

185, 187, 193, 196, 199, 201, 203, 205, 207, 

209, 211, 224, 226, 231, 232, 235, 242, 258, 

261, 263, 265, 267, 282, 285, 287, 289, 291, 

293, 295, 297, 299, 306, 314, 332, 363, 366, 

368, 374

Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions 

of documents in connection with motions for partial summary judgment, Daubert motions, and 

motions in limine filed by Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc. and Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation (twenty-eight total). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART 

and DENIES IN PART the motions to file under seal.

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 

common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 

and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 

strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 39
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations

omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 

may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 

without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 

to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-

5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 

agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 

satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPCMDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 

“prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 

June 30, 2015). 

Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 

requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 

is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 

Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 

examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

//

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 39
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. DISCUSSION

Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary 

judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to these documents. The 

Court applies the lower good cause standard for those documents related to the parties’ Daubert 

motions and motions in limine.

As indicated in the table below, the only proffered justification for sealing many of the 

documents is that the information was designated as “highly confidential” by either Plaintiff, 

Defendant, or non-parties GlaskoSmithKline PLC and GlaskoSmithKline LLC. But a designation 

of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a document is sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is merely the parties’ initial designation of confidentiality to establish 

coverage under the stipulated protective order. See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, 

Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“But good cause 

‘cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by 

stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential’”) (quoting Bain v. 

AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). Thus, many 

of the parties’ motions do not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). In addition, in many 

instances the designating party for the materials did not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), 

because they did not file a declaration within four days of the motion. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

The Court finds that sealing is not warranted as to those documents. 

Nevertheless, the Court finds that as to the remaining motions to seal, the parties have 

narrowly tailored their requested redactions to confidential and proprietary business, scientific, 

manufacturing, sales, or licensing information. The public release of these documents could give 

non-party competitors an unfair advantage in the development or marketing of rival products. See 

In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents 

could be used “‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 

standing’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). Thus, the 

Court finds that the parties have in those circumstances established either compelling reasons or 

good cause to grant the motions to file under seal. See, e.g., Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 39
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. 

Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012).

Docket No.

Public /(Sealed)

Document Portion(s) Sought to be 

Sealed

Ruling

Dkt. No. 149 – GRANTED

Dkt. No. 150-1/

(149-4)

Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of Daralyn J. 

Durie in Support of March 

18, 2019 Discovery Letter

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 153.)

Dkt. No. 164 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 165/

(164-4)

Plaintiff’s Notice of 

Motion and Motion to 

Exclude Certain Opinions 

and Testimony of 

Novartis’s Technical 

Experts

Page 2:15–28 

Page 3:1–13, 18–20 

Page 4:4–15, 19–20 

Page 5:5–12, 18–20, 24–

26 

Page 6:13–15 

Page 8:19–24 

Page 9:1–5 

Page 10:1–6, 15–22, 27–

28 

Page 11:25–28 

Page 12:1–2, 9–11

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 165-2/

(164-6)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Exclude the Opinions and 

Testimony of Novartis’s 

Technical Experts

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 165-3/

(164-8)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Exclude the Opinions and 

Testimony of Novartis’s 

Technical Experts

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 165-5/

(164-10)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Exclude the Opinions and 

Testimony of Novartis’s 

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 39
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Technical Experts

Dkt. No. 165-6/

(164-12)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Exclude the Opinions and 

Testimony of Novartis’s 

Technical Experts

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 165-8/

(164-14)

Exhibit 7 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Exclude the Opinions and 

Testimony of Novartis’s 

Technical Experts

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 166 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 167/

(166-4)

Plaintiff’s Notice of 

Motion and Motion for 

Summary Judgment of No 

Anticipation

Page 1:8–9, 13–18

Page 2:9

Page 5:17–22, 26–28

Page 6:1–10

Page 11:13–22

Page 12:3, 6–18, 20

Page 13:17–18, 20–24

Page 14:1–2

Page 15:13–14, 21–24

Page 16:1–7, 10, 12

Page 17:13–14

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 167-2/

(166-6)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Matthew 

W. Samuels in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of No 

Anticipation

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 167-10/

(166-8)

Exhibit 9 to the 

Declaration of Matthew 

W. Samuels in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of No 

Anticipation

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 167-20/

(166-10)

Exhibit 19 to the 

Declaration of Matthew 

W. Samuels in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of No 

Anticipation

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 167-21/

(166-12)

Exhibit 20 to the 

Declaration of Matthew 

W. Samuels in Support of 

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 5 of 39
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of No 

Anticipation

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 171.)

Dkt. No. 167-22/

(166-14)

Exhibit 21 to the 

Declaration of Matthew 

W. Samuels in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of No 

Anticipation

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 171.)

Dkt. No. 168 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 169/

(168-10)

Plaintiff’s Notice of 

Motion and Motion to 

Exclude the Opinions and 

Testimony of James E. 

Malackowski

Page i:7–10

Page 1:6–9, 12–15, 20

Page 2:7–10, 16–28

Page 3:1–28

Page 4:1–6

Page 7:3–28

Page 8:1–2, 4–15, 19–20, 

26–27

Page 9:8–17

Page 10:1–7, 16–28

Page 11:1, 11–12, 14–24

Page 12:4–5, 16–28

Page 13:1–14, 17–28

Page 14:1–17, 19–20

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 169-1/

(168-4)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Exclude the Opinions and 

Testimony of James E. 

Malackowski

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 169-3/

(168-8)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Exclude the Opinions and 

Testimony of James E. 

Malackowski

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 169-4/

(168-8)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Exclude the Opinions and 

Testimony of James E. 

Malackowski

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 6 of 39
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 176 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 177/

(176-4)

Defendant’s Notice of 

Motion and Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

Page 2:16, 24–28

Page 3:6–14, 21–26

Page 4:1–2, 7–11

Page 5:11–26

Page 6:1–13

Page 7:2–18, 20

Page 8:8–12, 26–27

Page 9:1–2, 6–15

Page 12:28

Page 13:1, 5–8, 10–18

Page 14:5–9

Page 15:25–27

Page 16:21–22

Page 17:15–18

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page 3:6–14, 

21–26

• Page 4:1–2, 7–

11

• Page 5:11–26

• Page 6:1–13

• Page 12:28

• Page 13:1, 5–8, 

10–18

• Page 14:5–9

 See Dkt. No. 182.)

Dkt. No. 177-16/

(176-12)

Declaration of Tara R.

Rheault, PhD., In Support 

of Defendant’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

Page 2:3, 7, 10, 23, 25–26

Page 3:1–27

Page 4:1, 3–12

GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 182.)

Dkt. No. 177-17/

(176-13)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of

Tara R. Rheault, PhD., In 

Support of Defendant’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 182.)

Dkt. No. 177-18/

(176-14)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of

Tara R. Rheault, PhD., In 

Support of Defendant’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 182.)

Dkt. No. 177-2/

(176-6)

Declaration of Phil S. 

Baran, PhD., In Support 

of Defendant’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

Page 2:11–16, 18–27

Page 3:1, 11–18

Page 4:9–13

Page 5:5–23, 25–26

Appendix A, pp. 1–3, 9–

11, 19

Appendix B in its entirety

GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 182.)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 7 of 39
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 177-6/

(Native Excel 

File)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of

Phil S. Baran, PhD., In 

Support of Defendant’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains trade 

secrets, as well as 

proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 182.)

Dkt. No. 177-7/

(176-7)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of

Phil S. Baran, PhD., In 

Support of Defendant’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains trade 

secrets, as well as 

proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 182.)

Dkt. No. 177-8/

(176-8)

Exhibit 6 to the 

Declaration of

Phil S. Baran, PhD., In 

Support of Defendant’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains trade 

secrets, as well as 

proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 182.)

Dkt. No. 177-9/

(176-9)

Exhibit 7 to the 

Declaration of

Phil S. Baran, PhD., In 

Support of Defendant’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains trade 

secrets, as well as 

proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 182.)

Dkt. No. 177-14/

(176-10)

Exhibit 12 to the 

Declaration of

Phil S. Baran, PhD., In 

Support of Defendant’s 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 177-20/

(176-15)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration Of

Thomas P. Steindler In 

Support Of Defendant’s 

Motion For Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 8 of 39
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 177-22/

(176-16)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration Of

Thomas P. Steindler In 

Support Of Defendant’s 

Motion For Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 178 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 179/

(178-4)

Defendant’s Notice of 

Motion and Motion to 

Strike Portions

of Expert Report of 

Plaintiff’s Expert Michael 

L. Metzker, Ph.D.

Page i:12

Page 2:2–3, 5–6, 8, 9, 12–

15, 18–19, 21

Page 5:10–12, 16–23

Page 6:8

Page 7:5, 7, 10, 15, 18–19, 

20, 24

Page 8:3, 7, 11, 16, 20, 

27–28

Page 9:1–2, 16

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 179-3/

(178-5)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of David 

Mlaver In Support Of 

Defendant’s Motion To 

Strike Portions of Expert 

Report of Plaintiff’s 

Expert Michael L. 

Metzker, Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 179-7/

(178-7)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of David 

Mlaver In Support Of 

Defendant’s Motion To 

Strike Portions of Expert 

Report of Plaintiff’s 

Expert Michael L.

Metzker, Ph.D.

Pages 12–15 DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 179-9/

(178-8)

Exhibit 7 to the 

Declaration of David 

Mlaver In Support Of 

Defendant’s Motion To 

Strike Portions of Expert 

Report of Plaintiff’s 

Expert Michael L. 

Metzker, Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 185 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 186/

(185-4)

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Summary Judgment Of 

No Anticipation

Page 4:8, 13

Page 5:13

Page 7:25

Page 10:7

Page 14:1–2, 5, 24–25

Page 15:6–21

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 9 of 39
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Page 16:12–13, 23–25

Page 17:15–16, 20–21

Page 18:15–18, 24–26

Page 19:8–9

development 

information:

• Page 15:10–17

See Dkt. No. 190.)

Dkt. No. 186-3/

(185-5)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support Of 

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Summary Judgment Of 

No Anticipation

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 186-4/

(185-7)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support Of 

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Summary Judgment Of 

No Anticipation

¶¶ 80–84, 86–87, 99–108 GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• ¶¶ 86, 104, 107, 

108

See Dkt. No. 190.)

Dkt. No. 186-6/

(185-8)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support Of 

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Summary

Judgment Of No 

Anticipation

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 186-8/

(185-9)

Exhibit 7 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support Of 

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Summary Judgment Of 

No Anticipation

Entire document DENIED

(Defendant states, in 

conclusory fashion, 

that the documents 

“contain and refer to 

competitively 

sensitive documents

the public disclosure 

of which would cause 

harm to Novartis.” 

See Dkt. No. 185-1. 

This generic 

explanation is 

insufficient to 

establish good cause.)

Dkt. No. 186-9/

(185-10)

Exhibit 8 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support Of 

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 10 of 39
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Summary Judgment Of 

No Anticipation

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 190.)

Dkt. No. 186-10/

(185-11)

Exhibit 9 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support Of 

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Summary Judgment Of 

No Anticipation

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 190.)

Dkt. No. 186-11/

(185-12)

Exhibit 10 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support Of 

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Summary Judgment Of 

No Anticipation

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 186-12/

(185-13)

Exhibit 11 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support Of 

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Summary Judgment Of 

No Anticipation

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 187 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 188/

(187-4)

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion To 

Exclude The Opinions 

And Testimony Of James 

E. Malackowski

Page i:8–10

Page 1:7–8, 10, 15–16, 21

Page 2:19–27

Page 3:1–15, 18–19, 23, 

25–26

Page 5:3–5, 8, 13, 16, 19–

20, 23, 25–26

Page 6:5

Page 7:12–14, 16–19, 23

Page 8:7, 13–17, 19, 20,

22, 24–28

Page 9:3, 6–7

Page 10:5–7, 16–20, 25–

28

Page 11:1–2, 27–28

DENIED

(Defendant states, in 

conclusory fashion, 

that the documents 

“contain and refer to 

competitively 

sensitive documents

the public disclosure 

of which would cause 

harm to Novartis.” 

See Dkt. No. 187-1. 

This generic 

explanation is 

insufficient to 

establish good cause.)

Dkt. No. 188-2/

(187-5)

Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion To 

Exclude The Opinions 

And Testimony Of James 

Entire document GRANTED IN 

PART

(Pages 12, 52–63 

contain trade secrets 

and highly 

confidential licensing 

information. See Dkt. 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 11 of 39
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

E. Malackowski No. 191. As to the 

rest of the document, 

Defendant states, in 

conclusory fashion, 

that it “contain[s] and 

refer[s] to 

competitively 

sensitive” 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 187-1. This 

generic explanation is 

insufficient to 

establish good cause.)

Dkt. No. 188-3/

(187-6)

Exhibit B to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion To 

Exclude The Opinions 

And Testimony Of James 

E. Malackowski

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 188-4/

(187-7)

Exhibit C to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Opposition 

To Plaintiff’s Motion To 

Exclude The Opinions 

And Testimony Of James 

E. Malackowski

Entire document DENIED

(Defendant states, in 

conclusory fashion, 

that the documents 

“contain and refer to 

competitively 

sensitive documents

the public disclosure 

of which would cause 

harm to Novartis.” 

See Dkt. No. 187-1. 

This generic 

explanation is 

insufficient to 

establish good cause.)

Dkt. No. 193 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 194/

(193-4)

Plaintiff’s Reply in 

Support of Its Motion to 

Exclude the Opinions and 

Testimony of James E. 

Malackowski

Page i:5–9

Page 1:5, 8–14, 17, 23–24

Page 2:9–11

Page 3:2, 27

Page 4:8–12, 21–25, 27–

28

Page 5:1–2, 12–13, 15–16, 

25–28

Page 6:1–2, 4–9, 14–17, 

23–26

Page 8:3–13

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 12 of 39
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Page 9:9–10

Dkt. No. 196 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 197/

(196-4)

Plaintiff’s Reply in 

Support of Its Motion to 

Exclude Certain Opinions 

and Testimony of 

Novartis’s Technical 

Experts

Page 3:3–14

Page 5:6–8, 24–28

Page 6:1–18

Page 7:2–6

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 199 – DENIED

Dkt. No 200/

(199-4)

Defendant’s Notice of 

Motion and Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Page 2:14, 22–28

Page 3:1–12, 14–26

Page 4:1–10

Page 5:23

Page 6:7–8, 11–13, 17–

21, 24–25, 27–28

Page 7:5–6, 8–11, 14–28

Page 8:1–6, 16–17, 20–26

Page 9:3–6, 9, 10–13, 16–

19, 21, 22–24, 26–27

Page 10:1–11, 20–24

Page 11:6–8

Page 12:20, 24

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 200-1/

(199-6)

Declaration of Phil S. 

Baran, Ph.D. In Support 

Of Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

¶¶ 17–28, 30–35, 37–45, 

47, 49, 58, 59

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 200-5/

(199-7)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 200-6/

(199-8)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 200-7/

(199-9)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Michael L. Metzker, 

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 13 of 39
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Ph.D.

Dkt. No. 200-8/

(199-10)

Exhibit 6 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 200-9/

(199-11)

Exhibit 7 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 200-10/

(199-12)

Exhibit 8 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 201 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 202/

(201-4)

Defendant’s Notice of 

Motion and Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Gregory K. Leonard, 

Ph.D.

Page 1:22–28

Page 2:1–16, 18–28

Page 3:1–13

Page 5:5–12, 15–24

Page 6, lines 15-28

Page 7, lines 1-3, 6-11

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 202-2/

(201-5)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Gregory K. Leonard, 

Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 202-3/

(201-6)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Gregory K. Leonard, 

Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 203 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 204/

(203-4)

Defendant’s Notice of 

Motion and Motion to 

Preclude Certain 

Testimony of Dr. Susana 

Page 1:20–25

Page 2:1, 4–25

Page 3:1–5

Page 7:21–23, 25–28

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 14 of 39
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert Page 8:1

Dkt. No. 204-2/

(203-5)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Preclude Certain 

Testimony of Dr. Susana 

Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 204-3/

(203-6)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Preclude Certain 

Testimony of Dr. Susana 

Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 205 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 206/

(205-4)

Defendant’s Notice of 

Motion and Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Ted Sweeney

Page 2:6–7, 21

Page 6:2–5, 18–20

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 206-2/

(205-5)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Ted Sweeney

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 207 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 208/

(207-4)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Portions of Report 

of Plaintiff’s Expert 

Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Page 1:3–4, 6

Page 3:2–3, 22, 24

Page 4:4–5, 28

Page 5:2–4

Page 9:13–14, 16

GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 221.)

Dkt. No. 208-1/

(207-6)

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Portions of Report 

of Plaintiff’s Expert 

Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Page 2:3–4 GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 221.)

Dkt. No. 208-5/

(207-8)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Portions of Report 

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 15 of 39
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of Plaintiff’s Expert 

Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

No. 221.)

Dkt. No. 208-10/

(207-10)

Exhibit 9 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Portions of Report 

of Plaintiff’s Expert 

Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Page 11:10–11, 14–16, 

18–21

Page 14:27–28

Page 15:3–9

GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 221.)

Dkt. No. 208-14/

(207-12)

Exhibit 13 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Portions of Report 

of Plaintiff’s Expert 

Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains trade 

secrets, as well as 

proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 221.)

Dkt. No. 208-15/

(207-14)

Exhibit 14 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Portions of Report 

of Plaintiff’s Expert 

Michael L. Metzker, 

Ph.D.

Page 10:13–16, 26

Page 31:11–17

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 209 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 210/

(209-4)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation’s Motion for 

Judgment on the 

Pleadings

Page i:8–9

Page 2:7–9

Page 5:17–28

Page 6:1, 3–10, 18–22, 

24–28

Page 7:1–2, 4

Page 8:6–13, 18–20

Page 9:3–4, 6–7, 9–10

Page 14:15–17

Page 15:4–5, 7–9, 11, 13–

14

Page 17:4–11, 26–27

Page 21:23–25

Page 22:1–2

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page 6:5–10, 12–

22, 24–28

• Page 7:1–2, 4

See Dkt. No. 223.)

Dkt. No. 210-6/

(209-6)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 16 of 39
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation’s Motion for 

Judgment on the 

Pleadings

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 223.)

Dkt. No. 210-7/

(209-8)

Exhibit 6 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation’s Motion for 

Judgment on the 

Pleadings

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 223.)

Dkt. No. 210-8/

(209-10)

Exhibit 7 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation’s Motion for 

Judgment on the 

Pleadings

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 223.)

Dkt. No. 210-9/

(209-12)

Exhibit 8 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation’s Motion for 

Judgment on the 

Pleadings

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 223.)

Dkt. No. 210-10/

(209-14)

Exhibit 9 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation’s Motion for 

Judgment on the 

Pleadings

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 210-11/

(209-16)

Exhibit 10 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation’s Motion for 

Judgment on the 

Pleadings

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 210-12/

(209-18)

Exhibit 11 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 17 of 39
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation’s Motion for 

Judgment on the 

Pleadings

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 210-13/

(209-20)

Exhibit 12 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation’s Motion for 

Judgment on the 

Pleadings

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 210-14/

(209-22)

Exhibit 13 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation’s Motion for 

Judgment on the 

Pleadings

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 211 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 212/

(211-4)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

Page i:11–13

Page 1:3–5, 17, 19–21, 23, 

28

Page 8:2, 4, 28

Page 9:1–4, 7, 24–28

Page 10:1, 7–13, 22–24, 

26–28

Page 11:4, 7–9

Page 15:19

Page 16:12–13

Page 17:10–12

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page i:11–13

• Page 1:3–5, 17, 

23, 28

• Page 8:2, 4, 28

• Page 9:1–4, 24–

28

• Page 10:1, 7–13, 

22–24, 26–28

• Page 11:4, 7–9

• Page 15:19

• Page 16:12–13

See Dkt. No. 222.)

Dkt. No. 213-1/

(211-6)

Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of Michael L. 

Metzker in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Page 42:1–25

Page 43:1–6

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 18 of 39
19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Judgment

Dkt. No. 213-2/

(211-8)

Exhibit B to the 

Declaration of Michael L. 

Metzker in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

Page 10:15–16, 26

Page 15:10–22, 14–16, 

18–20, 26–27

Page 16:1, 18–20, 23–24

Page 27:17

Page 31:11–19

Page 46:20–21

Page 62:1, 3, 6–12, 14–15, 

26

Page 63:1–4, 7–8, 26

Page 64:9–11

Page 65:2, 7–9, 11–12, 14, 

18, 20–22

Page 66:23–26

Page 67:1–2, 4, 6–24

Page 106:1–3, 5, 11–12, 

15–18

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page 62:1, 3, 6–

12, 14–15, 26

• Page 63:1–4

• Page 65:18

• Page 66:23–26

• Page 67:1–2, 4, 

6–24

• Page 106:1–3.

See Dkt. No. 222.)

Dkt. No. 212-13/

(211-10)

Exhibit 12 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 212-20/

(211-12)

Exhibit 19 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 214-1/

(211-14)

Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of Jeffrey 

Winkler in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 224 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 325/

(224-4)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Gregory K. Leonard, 

Ph.D.

Page 1:17–18

Page 4:6–7

Page 5:1

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 325-2/

(224-6)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Page 31, ¶¶ 62–63

Page 32, ¶¶ 63–65

Page 33, ¶¶ 65–66, n.88

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 19 of 39
20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Gregory K. Leonard, 

Ph.D.

Page 34, ¶ 68

Page 35, ¶ 69, n.93, 95

Page 36, ¶ 70

Page 37, ¶ 72

Page 38, ¶¶ 72–73, n.102, 

104

Page 39, ¶¶ 73–74, n.107

Page 40, n.110

Page 44, ¶ 81

Page 72, ¶¶ 124–125

Page 73, ¶ 125

Page 74, ¶ 128, n.219

Page 75, ¶¶ 128–129

Page 76, ¶¶ 131–132, 

n.222

Page 77, ¶¶ 132–135

Page 81, ¶ 147

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page 44, ¶ 81

• Page 71–72, 

¶ 124

• Page 76, n.222

• Page 77, ¶¶ 133, 

135

See Dkt. No. 237.)

Dkt. No. 325-3/

(224-8)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Gregory K. Leonard, 

Ph.D.

Page 45, n.133

Page 46, ¶ 74

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 226 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 227/

(226-4)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Preclude Certain 

Testimony of Dr. Susana 

Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert

Page 3:7–13, 16–21

Page 5:14–15, 21–24

Page 6:22–27

Page 9:8–10

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 227-2/

(226-6)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Preclude Certain 

Testimony of Dr. Susana 

Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert

Page 9, ¶ 20

Page 22, ¶ 50

Page 25, n.52

Page 26, ¶ 59, n.54

Page 27, ¶¶ 60, 61

Page 28, ¶ 63, n.61

Page 29, ¶ 66

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 227-3/

(226-8)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Preclude Certain 

Testimony of Dr. Susana 

Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 20 of 39
21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 231 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 233/

(231-4)

Defendant’s Reply in 

Support of Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

Page 1:15–17

Page 2:6–7

Page 3:4–5

Page 6:5–8, 12–13, 21, 

23–24 27–28

Page 7:1–4, 8 13, 16, 26–

28

Page 11:20–28

Page 12:8

Page 13:20–23

Page 15:8–10, 13–14, 17

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 233-2/

(231-6)

Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of Thomas 

Steindler in Support of 

Reply in Support of 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Pages 12–15 DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 233-3/

(231-7)

Exhibit B to the 

Declaration of Thomas 

Steindler in Support of 

Reply in Support of 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 233-4/

(231-8)

Exhibit C to the 

Declaration of Thomas 

Steindler in Support of 

Reply in Support of 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 233-5/

(231-9)

Exhibit D to the 

Declaration of Thomas 

Steindler in Support of 

Reply in Support of 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 233-6/

(231-10)

Exhibit E to the 

Declaration of Thomas 

Steindler in Support of 

Reply in Support of 

Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 232 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 234/

(232-4)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Ted Sweeney

Page 3:25–28

Page 4:1–2, 5–20

Page 6:7

Page 7:24–25

Page 8:11–14, 23, 28

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 21 of 39
22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Page 9:15, 28

Page 11:21, 27–28

Page 12:17, 28

Page 13:5–7, 12–13, 26

Dkt. No. 234-3/

(232-6)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Ted Sweeney

Page 13:12–13, 15–26

Page 14:5, 7–17

Page 23:22–23

Page 24:7–12

Page 25:16–27

Page 26:1–10, 12–14

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 234-5/

(232-8)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Ted Sweeney

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 234-6/

(232-10)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Ted Sweeney

Page 1:19–21, 23–26, 28 

Page 2:1–3, 6–7, 12–16, 

27–28 

Page 3:1–3, 11–12 

Page 4:3, 5 

Page 5:17–18

Page 6:15–16

Page 7:19–27

Page 8:1–2, 10–15

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 235 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 236/

(235-4)

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Strike Defendant’s 

Daubert Motions Filed 

June 6, 2019

Page 4:27–28

Page 5:1

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 236-2/

(235-6)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Strike Defendant’s 

Daubert Motions Filed 

June 6, 2019

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 236-3/

(235-8)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Strike Defendant’s 

Daubert Motions Filed 

June 6, 2019

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 242 – GRANTED

Dkt. No. 242-3/ Exhibit 5 to the Entire document GRANTED

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 22 of 39
23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(Native Excel 

File)

Declaration of Tom 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Reply in 

Support of Motion to 

Preclude Certain 

Testimony of Dr. Susana

Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert

(Contains licensing 

and proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 242.)

Dkt. No. 258 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 259/

(258-4)

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 1 Excluding 

Undisclosed Validity 

Challenges

Page 1:24–28

Page 2:1–3, 15–18

Page 3:1–3

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 259-2/

(258-6)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion in 

Limine No. 1 Excluding 

Undisclosed Validity 

Challenges

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 259-3/

(258-8)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion in 

Limine No. 1 Excluding 

Undisclosed Validity 

Challenges

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 261 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 262/

(261-4)

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 3 Re: 

Cumulative Expert 

Testimony

Page 1:8–9

Page 2:2–22

Page 3:2–3

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 262-2/

(261-6)

Exhibit 1 of the 

Declaration Of Laura E. 

Miller In Support Of 

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 3 Re: 

Cumulative Expert 

Testimony

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 262-3/

(261-8)

Exhibit 2 of the 

Declaration Of Laura E. 

Miller In Support Of 

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 3 Re: 

Cumulative Expert 

Testimony

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 262-4/

(261-10)

Exhibit 3 of the 

Declaration Of Laura E. 

Miller In Support Of 

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 23 of 39
24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 3 Re: 

Cumulative Expert 

Testimony

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 262-5/

(261-12)

Exhibit 4 of the 

Declaration Of Laura E. 

Miller In Support Of 

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 3 Re: 

Cumulative Expert 

Testimony

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 262-6/

(261-14)

Exhibit 5 of the 

Declaration Of Laura E. 

Miller In Support Of 

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 3 Re: 

Cumulative Expert 

Testimony

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 263 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 264/

(263-4)

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 4 re: 

Excluding Withheld 

Evidence

Page 2:25–28

Page 3:1–3

Page 3:7–9

Page 4:28

Page 5:1

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 264-1/

(263-6)

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller In Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 4 re: 

Excluding Withheld 

Evidence

Page 1:17–19 DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 264-6/

(263-8)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller In Support of

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 4 re: 

Excluding Withheld 

Evidence

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 264-7/

(263-10)

Exhibit 6 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller In Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion In 

Limine No. 4 re: 

Excluding Withheld 

Evidence

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 265 – GRANTED

Dkt. No. 266/

(265-4)

Plaintiff’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 re: 

Excluding Hidden 

Page 1:20–25

Page 2:2–3, 7–9

GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 24 of 39
25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Hearsay Testimony research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 274.)

Dkt. No. 266-2/

(265-6)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 re: 

Excluding Hidden 

Hearsay Testimony

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 274.)

Dkt. No. 267 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 273-5/

(267-5)

Exhibit E to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support of 

Novartis’s Motions in 

Limine

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 267-1.)

Dkt. No. 273-6/

(267-7)

Exhibit F to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In

Support of Novartis’s 

Motions in Limine

Page i:11–13

Page 1:3–5, 17, 19–21, 23, 

28

Page 8:2, 4, 28

Page 9:1–4, 7, 24–28

Page 10:1, 7–13, 22–24, 

26–28

Page 11:4, 7–9

Page 15:19

Page 16:12–13

Page 17:10–12

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page i:11–13

• Page 1:3–5, 17, 

23, 28

• Page 8:2, 4, 28

• Page 9:1–4, 24–

28

• Page 10:1, 7–13, 

22–24, 26–28

• Page 11:4, 7–9

• Page 15:19

• Page 16:12–13

See Dkt. No. 222.)

Dkt. No. 273-7/

(267-9)

Exhibit G to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In

Support of Novartis’s 

Motions in Limine

Page i:8–9

Page 2:7–9

Page 5:17–28

Page 6:1, 3–10, 18–22, 

24–28

Page 7:1–2, 4

Page 8:6–13, 18–20

Page 9:3–4, 6–7, 9–10

Page 14:15–17

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page 6:5–10, 12–

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 25 of 39
26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Page 15:4–5, 7–9, 11, 13–

14

Page 17:4–11, 26–27

Page 21:23–25

Page 22:1–2

22, 24–28

• Page 7:1–2, 4

See Dkt. No. 223.)

Dkt. No. 273-11/

(267-10)

Exhibit K to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support of 

Novartis’s Motions in 

Limine

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 272/

(267-4)

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 re: Evidence 

or Argument Suggesting

Damages Should Be 

Awarded for Any Period 

After December 2018

Page 1:12–26

Page 2:25–26

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 282 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 283/

(282-4)

Opposition To 

Plexxikon’s Motion in 

Limine No. 1 re:

Excluding Undisclosed

Validity Challenges

Page 2:12–13, 19–20, 23–

24

Page 3:5–8

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 285 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 286-2/

(285-4)

Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support of 

Opposition To

Plexxikon’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3 re: 

Cumulative Expert

Testimony

¶¶ 3, 7, 17, 21, 25, 26, 28–

31, 75–78, 115–122, 126, 

127

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 286-7/

(285-6)

Exhibit F to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support of 

Opposition To

Plexxikon’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3 re: 

Cumulative Expert

Testimony

¶ 3 DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 286-9/

(285-8)

Exhibit H to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support of 

Opposition To

Plexxikon’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3 re: 

Cumulative Expert

Testimony

¶¶ 61–65 DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 26 of 39
27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 286-10/

(285-10)

Exhibit I to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support of 

Opposition To

Plexxikon’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3 re: 

Cumulative Expert

Testimony

¶¶ 57–59, 77–80 DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 287 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 288-3/

(287-3)

Exhibit B to the 

Declaration of

Thomas P. Steindler In

Support Of Novartis’s

Opposition to Plexxikon’s

Motion in Limine No. 4 

re: Excluding Withheld 

Evidence

Entire document DENIED

(Defendant states, in 

conclusory fashion, 

that the document 

“contain[s] and 

refer[s] to 

competitively 

sensitive documents

the public disclosure 

of which would cause 

harm to Novartis.” 

See Dkt. No. 287-1. 

This generic 

explanation is 

insufficient to 

establish good cause.)

Dkt. No. 288-4/

(287-4)

Exhibit C to the 

Declaration of

Thomas P. Steindler In

Support Of Novartis’s

Opposition to Plexxikon’s

Motion in Limine No. 4 

re: Excluding Withheld 

Evidence

Entire document DENIED

(Defendant states, in 

conclusory fashion, 

that the document 

“contain[s] and 

refer[s] to 

competitively 

sensitive documents

the public disclosure 

of which would cause 

harm to Novartis.” 

See Dkt. No. 287-1. 

This generic 

explanation is 

insufficient to 

establish good cause.)

Dkt. No. 289 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 290/

(289-4)

Opposition To 

Plexxikon’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 re:

Excluding Hidden 

Hearsay Testimony

Page 1:21–23;

Page 2:20–25;

Page 3:1–8;

Page 5:3

GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 27 of 39
28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No. 301.)

Dkt. No. 290-2/

(289-5)

Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of

Thomas P. Steindler In

Support of Opposition To

Plexxikon’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 re: 

Excluding Hidden

Hearsay Testimony

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 291 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 292/

(291-3)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 1 Re: PTAB 

Proceedings

Page 2:7–10 DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 292-6/

(291-5)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 1 Re: PTAB 

Proceedings

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 292-8/

(291-7)

Exhibit 7 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 1 Re: PTAB 

Proceedings

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 292-9/

(291-9)

Exhibit 8 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 1 Re: PTAB 

Proceedings

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 293 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 294/

(293-3)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2 re: 

Unasserted Patents as 

Evidence of the Validity 

of the Asserted Patents

Page 2:3–5, 11–16 DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 294-3/

(293-5)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2 re: 

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 28 of 39
29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Unasserted Patents as 

Evidence of the Validity 

of the Asserted Patents

Dkt. No. 294-5/

(293-7)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2 re: 

Unasserted Patents as 

Evidence of the Validity 

of the Asserted Patents

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 295 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 296-2/

(295-3)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3 re: Evidence 

or Argument 

Mischaracterizing or 

Having a Tendency to 

Mislead as to the Scope of 

Plexxikon’s Patent Rights

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 296-3/

(295-5)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3 re: Evidence 

or Argument 

Mischaracterizing or 

Having a Tendency to 

Mislead as to the Scope of 

Plexxikon’s Patent Rights

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 297 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 326/

(297-4)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged 

Copying

Page 1:19–24

Page 2:9, 17–28

Page 3:1–5, 8–20

GRANTED

(Contains licensing 

negotiation, as well as 

proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 302.)

Dkt. No. 326-2/

(297-6)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 29 of 39
30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged 

Copying

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 302.)

Dkt. No. 326-3/

(297-8)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4 Re:

Alleged Copying

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 302.)

Dkt. No. 316/

(297-10)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged 

Copying

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains licensing 

negotiation, as well as 

proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 302.)

Dkt. No. 298-5/

(297-12)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged 

Copying

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains licensing 

negotiation, as well as 

proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 302.)

Dkt. No. 298-6/

(297-14)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4 Re:

Alleged Copying

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 298-7/

(297-16)

Exhibit 6 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged 

Copying

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 298-8/

(297-18)

Exhibit 7 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 30 of 39
31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged 

Copying

Dkt. No. 299 – DENIED

Dkt. No. 327-4/

(299-4)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 Re: 

Evidence or Argument 

Suggesting Damages 

Should be Awarded for 

Any Period After 

December 2018

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 327-5/

(299-6)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 Re: 

Evidence or Argument 

Suggesting Damages 

Should be Awarded for 

Any Period After 

December 2018

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 306 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 307/

(306-4)

Defendant’s Notice of 

Motion and Motion to 

Strike Second

Supplemental Report of

Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory 

K. Leonard, Ph.D.

Page:2:25–28

Page 6:25–26

Page 8:11

Page 9:10, 17–26

Page 10:1–14, 24–28

Page 11:1–14, 16–18

Page 13:4–10

Page 14:22–23

Page 15:1–9, 17–20

Page 16:4, 7–11, 20–22, 

24–27

Page 17:1–8

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 307-2/

(306-5)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support Of 

Defendant’s Motion To 

Strike Second

Supplemental Report of

Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory 

K. Leonard, Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 307-3/

(306-7)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

¶ 59, & n.75

Figure 4

GRANTED

(Contains licensing 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 31 of 39
32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Steindler In Support Of 

Defendant’s Motion To 

Strike Second

Supplemental Report of

Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory 

K. Leonard, Ph.D.

¶¶ 75–77, & n.112, 115, 

117

¶ 79, & n.118

¶¶ 112–114, & n.194

Exhibit 3 (pages 1 and 2)

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 312.)

Dkt. No. 307-4/

(306-8)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler In Support Of 

Defendant’s

Motion To Strike Second

Supplemental Report of

Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory 

K. Leonard, Ph.D.

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 314 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 325/

(314-5)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Gregory K. Leonard, 

Ph.D.

Page 3:16–22, 23–24, 26 GRANTED

(Contains trade 

secrets and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 314.)

Dkt. No. 325/

(314-5)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Gregory K. Leonard, 

Ph.D.

Page 1:17–18

Page 2:3–13

Page 4:6–7

Page 5:1

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 325-2/

(314-7)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Gregory K. Leonard, 

Ph.D.

Page 29, ¶ 59

Page 40, ¶ 79

Page 41, n.112

Page 42, n.117, 118

Page 44, ¶ 83

Page 45, ¶¶ 83–85

Page 46, ¶¶ 85–86, n.132–

134

Page 47, ¶¶ 86–88, n.135

Page 48, ¶¶ 88–89, n.139–

140

Page 58, ¶¶ 102, 104

Page 59, ¶ 104

Page 60, ¶¶ 106–107

Page 61, ¶¶ 107–109, 

n.185

Page 62, ¶¶ 109–110, 

n.188

Page 65, ¶¶ 113–114, 

n.194

Page 66, ¶ 114

Page 81, ¶ 144, n.231

GRANTED

(Contains trade 

secrets and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 314.)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 32 of 39
33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 325-2/

(314-7)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

of Gregory K. Leonard, 

Ph.D.

Page 28, ¶ 57

Page 29, ¶ 60

Page 30, Figure 4

Page 31, ¶¶ 62–63

Page 32, ¶¶ 63–65

Page 33, ¶¶ 65–66, n.88

Page 34, ¶ 68

Page 35, ¶¶ 68–69, n.93, 

95

Page 36, ¶ 70

Page 37, ¶ 72

Page 38, ¶¶ 72–73, n.102, 

104

Page 39, ¶¶ 73–74, n.107

Page 40, n.110

Page 44, ¶ 81

Page 68, ¶¶ 117–118

Page 69, ¶¶ 119–120

Page 70, ¶¶ 120–121

Page 71, ¶¶ 122–123

Page 72, ¶¶ 124–125

Page 73, ¶¶ 126–127

Page 74, ¶¶ 127–128, 

n.219

Page 75, ¶¶ 128–131

Page 76, ¶¶ 131–132, 

n.222

Page 77, ¶¶ 132–135

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page 44, ¶ 81

• Page 68, ¶¶ 117–

118

• Page 69, ¶¶ 119–

120

• Page 70, ¶¶ 120–

121

• Page 71, ¶¶ 122–

123

• Page 72, ¶¶ 124–

125

• Page 73, ¶¶ 126–

127

• Page 74, ¶¶ 127–

128, n.219

• Page 75, ¶¶ 128–

131

• Page 76, ¶¶ 131–

132, n.222

• Page 77, ¶¶ 132–

135

See Dkt. No. 330.)

Dkt. No. 316/

(314-9)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged 

Copying

Page 44, ¶ 83 GRANTED

(Contains trade secret 

and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 314.)

Dkt. No. 327-2/

(314-11)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plexxikon’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 Re: 

Evidence or Argument 

Suggesting Damages 

Should be Awarded for 

Any Period After 

December 2018

Page 2:20–27

Page 3:1–28

Page 4:1–2, 4–27

Page 5:8–9

GRANTED

(Contains trade secret 

and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 314.)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 33 of 39
34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 327-3/

(314-13)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plexxikon’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 Re: 

Evidence or Argument 

Suggesting Damages 

Should be Awarded for 

Any Period After 

December 2018

Page 14:8–10 GRANTED

(Contains trade secret 

and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 314.)

Dkt. No. 327-4/

(314-15)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 Re: 

Evidence or Argument 

Suggesting Damages 

Should be Awarded for 

Any Period After 

December 2018

Page 65, ¶ 113

Page 66, ¶ 114

GRANTED

(Contains trade secret 

and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 314.)

Dkt. No. 327-4/

(314-15)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 Re: 

Evidence or Argument 

Suggesting Damages 

Should be Awarded for 

Any Period After 

December 2018

Page 27, ¶ 56

Page 27–28, ¶ 57

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 327-5/

(314-17)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 Re: 

Evidence or Argument 

Suggesting Damages 

Should be Awarded for 

Any Period After 

December 2018

Exhibits 2a, 2b, 3, and 4 GRANTED

(Contains trade secret 

and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 314.)

Dkt. No. 327-5/

(314-17)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Page 1–2, ¶ 4

Exhibits 5a, 5b, 5c, and 6

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 34 of 39
35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 Re: 

Evidence or Argument 

Suggesting Damages 

Should be Awarded for 

Any Period After 

December 2018

Dkt. No. 319/

(314-19)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Second 

Supplemental Report of 

Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory 

K. Leonard, Ph.D.

Page 2:20–27

Page 3:1–28

Page 4:1–2, 4–27

Page 5:8–9

GRANTED

(Contains trade secret 

and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 314.)

Dkt. No. 319/

(314-19)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Thomas P. 

Steindler in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Second 

Supplemental Report of 

Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory 

K. Leonard, Ph.D.

Page 6:2–3 DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 332 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 333/

(332-4)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion to 

Strike the Second 

Supplemental Report of 

Dr. Gregory K. Leonard

Page 6:26–27

Page 16:20–21

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 333-4/

(332-6)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion to 

Strike the Second 

Supplemental Report of 

Dr. Gregory K. Leonard

Page 2:20–27

Pages 3–4

Page 5:8–9

GRANTED

(Contains trade secret 

and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 332.)

Dkt. No. 333-5/

(332-8)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion to 

Strike the Second 

Supplemental Report of 

Dr. Gregory K. Leonard

Page 14:8–10 GRANTED

(Contains trade secret 

and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 332.)

Dkt. No. 333-6/

(332-10)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Pages 23–24, ¶ 51, n.55

Page 25, ¶ 53, n.63–64

Pages 27–28, ¶¶ 56–57, 

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 35 of 39
36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion to 

Strike the Second 

Supplemental Report of 

Dr. Gregory K. Leonard

n.72

Pages 34–36, ¶¶ 68–70, 

n.93, 95

Pages 37–38, ¶¶ 72–73, 

n.102, 104

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page 25, ¶ 53, 

n.63–64

• Pages 27–28, 

¶ 57, n.72

See Dkt. No. 334.)

Dkt. No. 333-6/

(332-10)

Exhibit 5 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion to 

Strike the Second 

Supplemental Report of 

Dr. Gregory K. Leonard

Page 41, ¶ 76, n.112

Page 42, n.117–118

Page 58, ¶¶ 102, 104

Page 61–62, ¶¶ 107–110, 

n.185

Page 65–66, ¶¶ 113–114, 

n.194

Page 85, ¶ 153

Exhibit 3 (pages 1 and 2)

GRANTED

(Contains trade secret 

and licensing 

negotiation terms. 

See Dkt. No. 332.)

Dkt. No. 333-7/

(332-12)

Exhibit 6 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Novartis’s Motion to 

Strike the Second 

Supplemental Report of 

Dr. Gregory K. Leonard

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 363 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 364/

(363-4)

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2

Page 1:14–15, 20–23

Page 8:13–17

Page 9:1–2

DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 364-2/

(363-6)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 364-3/

(363-8)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 364-5/

(363-10)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Entire document GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

manufacturing 

information. See Dkt. 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 36 of 39
37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2

No. 370.)

Dkt. No. 364-7/

(363-12)

Exhibit 6 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 364-10/

(363-14)

Exhibit 9 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 366 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 367/

(366-5)

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3

Page 16:10 GRANTED

(Contains confidential 

sales information. 

See Dkt. No. 366.)

Dkt. No. 367/

(366-5)

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3

Page 6:3–11

Page 11:7–28

Page 12:1–18

Page 13:1–14

Page 14:6–18

Page 16:3, 21–22

Page 19:18–19, 27

Page 21:13–20

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page 11:7–28

• Page 12:1–18

• Page 13:1–14

See Dkt. No. 371.)

Dkt. No. 367-2/

(366-7)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 367-3/

(366-9)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 367-4/

(366-11)

Exhibit 3 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 37 of 39
38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3

Dkt. No. 367-5/

(366-13)

Exhibit 4 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 3

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 368 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Dkt. No. 369/

(368-4)

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4

Page 1:9–10

Page 2:6–9

Page 3:16–20, 22–25

Page 4:2–7, 11–12, 27–28

Page 5:1, 7–9, 12–16, 17–

27

Page 6:3–6, 12–14, 16–28

Page 7:1, 4–24, 26–28

Page 8:1–5, 13–16

Page 9:4, 11–16, 18–28

Page 10:1, 9–13

Page 11:1–4, 6–16

Page 12:15–24

Page 13:1, 4–6, 8–14, 17–

20, 23–24, 28

Page 14:1–5

GRANTED IN 

PART

(The following 

contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information:

• Page 1:9–10

• Page 2:6–9

• Page 3:16–20, 

22–25

• Page 4:2–7, 11–

12, 27–28

• Page 5:1, 7–9, 

12–27

• Page 6:4–7, 13–

15, 17–28

• Page 7:1–2, 5–

25, 27–28

• Page 8:1–6, 15–

17;

• Page 9:20–25, 

27–28

• Page 10:1–10,

18–22

• Page 12:26–28

• Page 13:1–8, 11–

13

• Page 14:2–3, 11–

15

• Page 15:6, 14, 19

See Dkt. No. 372.)

Dkt. No. 369-2/

(368-6)

Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 38 of 39
39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4

Dkt. No. 369-3/

(368-8)

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Laura E. 

Miller in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof 

Re: Novartis’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4

Entire document DENIED

(No supporting 

declaration filed. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Dkt. No. 374 – GRANTED

Dkt. No. 375/

(374-4)

Offer of Proof Relating to 

Plaintiff’s Motion in 

Limine No. 1

Page 10:3–27

Page 11:1–21

Page 12:19–21

Page 13:3–18, 21–27

Page 14:1–6, 8–9, 11–20, 

22–27

Page 15:1, 3–4, 6–8

Page 21:22–23

Page 22:1–12, 14–26

Page 23:3–4, 7, 9, 21–22, 

24–26

Page 24:3, 5, 10, 19–22, 

24–26

Page 25:1, 15–25

Page 26:2–6, 8–25

Page 27:1–4, 6–22, 26–28

Page 35:11–27

Page 36:1–26

Page 37:1–13

Page 50:23

Page 51:1–6, 18–20

GRANTED

(Contains proprietary 

pharmaceutical 

research and 

development 

information. See Dkt. 

No. 377.)

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ administrative 

motions to file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as 

to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The Court DIRECTS the 

parties to file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied, as 

indicated in the chart above, within seven days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/13/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 386 Filed 03/13/20 Page 39 of 39