Genentech, Inc. v. Biogen MA, Inc.

Nature of the Order

This is a pretrial order governing preparation and trial procedures. It does not decide the parties’ underlying claims.

Trial Schedule and Time Limits

The court confirmed that trial would proceed in Courtroom 1. Jury selection was set for June 27, 2025, and trial evidence, including opening statements, was set to begin June 30, 2025. Trial was scheduled to begin daily at 8:30 a.m., with six hours and 10 minutes of trial time each day. The court reserved one hour for each side’s closing argument and stated that daily timesheets would show the time remaining.

Evidence, Witnesses, and Trial Procedures

The court ordered that witnesses be excluded until their testimony was complete. The parties could not refer to settlement discussions, mediation, or insurance, and generally could not present evidence about a party’s wealth except during a punitive-damages phase, if one existed. The court stated that rulings on motions to exclude anticipated evidence would be issued separately.

The parties were limited to the witnesses on their pretrial list, unless the court allowed additional witnesses for good cause, including rebuttal or impeachment. They were also limited to the exhibits on their exhibit list. Documents or other objects had to be marked with exhibit numbers before being shown to a witness, and exhibits could not be shown to the jury until admitted into evidence or stipulated to by the parties unless the court expressly permitted it.

The court required the parties to resubmit their joint exhibit list in a specified format by June 23, 2025. It also required witness, attorney, and other trial-participant information for use during jury selection; revised jury instructions by noon on June 12, 2025; expert reports by June 12, 2025, if not already provided; and any offers of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 by June 27, 2025.

Jury and Courtroom Rules

The court set a jury of eight people with no alternates and allowed three peremptory challenges per side. The court would conduct questioning of prospective jurors, while each side would receive 15 minutes for follow-up questions. Challenges based on the improper use of peremptory strikes had to be made promptly and argued outside the jury panel’s presence.

The parties could review public internet information about jurors or prospective jurors but could not communicate with them or request access to nonpublic social-media information. If a party asked follow-up questions based on such a review, it had to disclose the review to the juror.

The court prohibited speaking objections and allowed written questions from jurors, which the court would share with counsel during breaks and place in the record. The order also addressed courtroom equipment, deposition transcripts, witness availability, trial decorum, procedural stipulations, and certification of the exhibits placed in the jury room.

Ruling on Remote Testimony and Sealing

The court granted Biogen’s unopposed motion for Kristina Dickerson to testify remotely from Boston, Massachusetts, because of health concerns related to travel. The court also granted the related motion to seal. Dickerson was required to testify from the United States Courthouse in Boston, and each side was permitted to have one lawyer present with her to manage exhibits.

Settlement and Compliance

The parties were required to notify the court promptly of any settlement. The court stated that trial-related dates would not be vacated until a formal notice of settlement was filed and warned that jury costs could be assessed if notice was not timely provided and the parties did not proceed to trial as scheduled.

The court warned that failure to comply with the order could result in sanctions, including monetary fines or terminating sanctions. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered the order on June 11, 2025.