On January 3, 2017 in the Amgen v. Sanofi/Regeneron action, Judge Robinson denied Defendants’ motion for judgment in their favor as a matter of law (JMOL) and request for a new trial regarding written description and enablement of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. On March 16, 2016, after a trial, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for JMOL on the issue of willful infringement and the jury returned a verdict finding the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit valid and infringed. In their more recent motion, Defendants’ argued that exclusion of post-January 2008 evidence substantially prejudiced their lack of written description and non-enablement defenses.
In denying Defendants’ motion, the Court declined to re-weigh the evidence or the credibility of the experts given its findings that (1) the parties’ experts analyzed the specification’s disclosures and formulated the conclusions, and that the Plaintiffs’ expert opinions were not conclusory; and (2) the jury properly weighed the experts’ testimony. The Court also held that exclusion of the post-January 2008 evidence and the jury instructions were proper and did not substantially prejudice Defendants’ defenses.