Judge Richard G. Andrews recently considered motions in limine filed in advance of the bench trial in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, No. 15-474-RGA (D. Del. Jun. 30, 2017). Plaintiffs moved to exclude certain “points” of Defendant’s invalidity experts disclosed during deposition. Judge Andrews ordered that Plaintiffs could serve limited reports responding to those points and then Defendants could serve limited reports in reply. Id. at 1-2. Judge Andrews denied Defendant’s motion in limine seeking to limit Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony on “unexpected results” because it was conclusory. “If the testimony turns out to be conclusory, it will carry no weight in the final analysis; but, whether it is conclusory is something I will better understand after hearing it.” Id.at 2. Defendant also sought to preclude “Plaintiffs from responding to Defendant’s obviousness arguments with what it calls ‘post art,’ that is, art which is after the relevant dates . . . for considering the state of the art for obviousness analysis.” Id. at 2-3. Judge Andrews denied the motion noting that while “post art” has limitations, it is possible that it may be offered for a purpose that is relevant and appropriate, such as “to show circumstantially what was know or unknown earlier[.]” Id.at 3.