Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding admissible expert testimony regarding pharmaceutical company’s “compliance] with the FDA’s statutory and regulatory requirements”
• noting that although the plaintiffs pointed to evidence that the expert had “failed to consider some documents that might have affected his opinions,” this was “an issue best addressed by cross-examination” that did not “render[] his entire testimony inadmissible”
• finding an expert’s opinions on the history and development of drug appropriate and admissible when based on many years of training and experience in the field, as well as reference to several academic medical journals”
• where challenged expert testimony “goes more to the weight of the evidence than to its admissibility,” it is more “appropriately addressed in cross examination” rather than a motion in limine to preclude the evidence altogether

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).