Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLEXXIKON INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-04405-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION vs. DESIGNATIONS

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS Re: Dkt. No. 524 CORPORATION, Defendant.

13 As previously ordered (Dkt. No. 527), the Court OVERRULES Novartis’ objections to Plexxikon’s deposition designations (Dkt. No. 524) for the following reasons: Schwartz Designations 5-10: Christina Schwartz provided an opinion of counsel regarding non-infringement of the asserted patents. The designated deposition testimony shows that she did not evaluate infringement for claim 1 of the ’640 Patent. Novartis objects under Rules 402 and 403 because it “stipulated to infringement” of that claim. (Dkt. No. 524.) However, it admits that an opinion of counsel is part of its willfulness defense and that the opinion was provided prior to the stipulation. (Id.) Thus, because the nature of Novartis’ due diligence—including the process that produced the opinion of…