Power Alley: In The US Merck v. German Merck Long Running Lanham Act Litigation, A Significant Ruling On Expert Testimony Admissabilty. Opinion Sealed For Now Only.

The final order from the able USDC Judge Esther Salas, in Newark -- with its conclusions -- but not the reasoning. . . is now on the public docket. [This is (in all its iterations) clearly a multi-billion dollar dispute, lasting on and off now, from 1917 and the Treaty of Versailles -- to this morning, in courtrooms dotting the globe. Who really owns the corporate wordmark called "Merck"? Wow.]

Here it is in full -- until a redacted written opinion is available -- and here is a bit of it. We know this ought to settle, as we have long said.

. . .ORDERED that Defendant’s [German Merck's] Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions & Testimony of [US Merck's] Plaintiffs’ Expert Dominique M. Hanssens, (D.E. No. 261), is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that [US Merck's] Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Overseas Trademark Use & Foreign Litigations, i.e., to preclude [German Merck] from presenting any evidence, argument, or reference to overseas trademark use & foreign litigations, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, & 403, (D.E. No. 262), is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. [US Merck's] Plaintiffs’ motion is granted to the extent that they seek to exclude any evidence of foreign litigation from presentation to the jury. [US Merck's] Plaintiffs’ motion is otherwise DENIED without prejudice. . . .

* * *

. . .ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the accompanying Opinion under temporary seal; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send hard copies of the accompanying sealed Opinion to counsel of record via regular mail; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall review the sealed Opinion and, on or before December 12, 2025, file either (i) a joint motion to seal pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3, attaching a version of the Opinion with proposed redactions; or (ii) a joint letter indicating that no redactions are necessary, and that they consent to unsealing the Opinion in its entirety. If the parties fail to comply with this directive, the Court will unseal the Opinion, in its entirety, without further notice. . . .

Onward -- grinning.

Finally -- some progress here. Clearly the rulings are meant to encourage the two parties to "declare victory" -- and find a negotiated "peace". Wisely-so, too.

Housekeeping note: I will be off grid in the mountains for about eight days, now -- tending to an elderly relative's care -- but will post an update here, if this redacted opinion appears on the public docket, before I reach Nashville (in a few weeks).

नमस्ते