See, the headlines say it was a win:

Except that, from what I can tell, the Court actually (1) prevented plaintiffs from introducing evidence that 200mg/day of Celebrex increased the risk of heart failure and stroke (2) allowed plaintiffs to introduce evidence that 400mg/day or more of Celebrex increased the risk of heart failure and stroke.

From reading parts of the opinion, it appears the evidence presented to the Court for 200mg risk was seriously deficient.

I guess it’s a "big" "win" if you presume that courts usually allow plaintiffs all the bad science they want in proving their claim. Fact is, Courts routinely exclude plaintiff’s experts yet rarely exclude defendant’s experts, no matter how far-fetched it might seem. There are some good reasons for that, such as how the plaintiff bears the burden at trial.

But it’s no big "win" for plaintiff’s bad science to be excluded prior to trial — it’s the normal course of business.