Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429-39/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

GENENTECH, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INSMED INCORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5429 CW (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STRIKE SECOND

BACKMAN REPORT; AND DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE

THIRD BACKMAN REPORT

(Docket Nos. 601, 617)

Defendants have filed motions to strike the second and third expert reports of Keith C.

Backman. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, and for the reasons

stated on the record, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to

strike the second report and DENIES the motion to strike the third report.

A. Motion to Strike Second Backman Report

Defendants’ motion to strike the second Backman report is denied to the extent Defendants

seek to bar Plaintiffs from relying at all on the report. It properly responds to the Foley opinion

raised by Defendants. The Court also notes there is no prejudice as Defendants served a rebuttal

expert report. However, Plaintiffs may use the second Backman report only with respect to the issue

of willfulness (i.e., not invalidity). The scope of Dr. Backman’s testimony on the issue of invalidity

in the case in chief is defined by his first report.

///

///

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 648 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

B. Motion to Strike Third Backman Report

Defendants’ motion to strike the third Backman report is denied. The report responds to the

indefiniteness allegation which Defendants did not made until their final invalidity contentions were

served on or about August 18, 2006 after claim construction. Defendants’ argument that the report

should have been submitted during claim construction and thus should now be barred lacks merit. 

As to Defendants’ claim that Dr. Backman should be barred from testifying consistent with the third

report because the report does nothing more than provide Dr. Backman’s “own personal

construction of the claims,” Reply at 3, that is a matter of admissibility of testimony at trial for

Judge Wilken to decide. It is not a basis for striking the report which would effectively preempt the

trial judge from determining admissibility.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 601 and 617.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 648 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 2