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 P laintiff Uro Pep’s Motion to Preclude Lilly’s Experts from Presenting Testimony that Contradicts the Court’s Summary Judgment Ruling ( “Motion to Preclude”), Dkt. No. 257. The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. UroPep’s motion is directed to barring some or all of the testimony corresponding to seven expert reports submitted by Lilly . UroPep explains that its motion is directed to three categories of what it considers impermissible opinion testimony.