Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company et al, No. 2:15-cv-01202 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2017)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is Plaintiff UroPep’s Motion to Strike Previously Undisclose d Prior Art and a Non- Prior Art Reference from Lilly’s Second Amended Invalidity Contentions, Dkt. No. 253; an objection by plaintiff Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR (“UroPep”) to the admissibility of trial exhibits related to some of the prior art references that are the subject of the previous motion, see Dkt. No. 268, at 7; and an objection by UroPep to the admissibility , as substantive evidence, of two exhibits related to the prosecution of patent applicat ion serial no.