Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al

Filing 1036

MOTION in Limine to Bind Amgen Inc. to Prior Admissions Relevant to Double Patenting by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc..(Toms, Keith)

Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al

Doc. 1036

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1036

Filed 09/10/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

AMGEN, INC., Plaintiff, v. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE Ltd, a Swiss Company, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GmbH, a German Company and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendants. Civil Action No. 05-12237 WGY U.S. District Judge Young

ROCHE'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO BIND AMGEN INC. TO PRIOR ADMISSIONS RELEVANT TO DOUBLE PATENTING Leora Ben-Ami (pro hac vice) Mark S. Popofsky (pro hac vice) Patricia A. Carson (pro hac vice) Thomas F. Fleming (pro hac vice) Howard S. Suh (pro hac vice) Christopher T. Jagoe (pro hac vice) Peter Fratangelo (BBO# 639775) Krista M. Rycroft (pro hac vice) Kaye Scholer LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel. [phone] Lee Carl Bromberg (BBO# 058480) Timothy M. Murphy (BBO# 551926) Julia Huston (BBO# 562160) Keith E. Toms (BBO# 663369) Nicole A. Rizzo (BBO# 663853) Bromberg & Sunstein LLP 125 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Tel. [phone]

Dated: Boston, Massachusetts September 10, 2007

Counsel for Defendants F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1036

Filed 09/10/2007

Page 2 of 4

Roche respectfully moves this Court for an order binding Amgen Inc. to prior admissions made during Interference No. 102,097 relating to the obviousness of the `868 and `698 patent claims over the claims of the expired `008 patent. Amgen's current assertions regarding the non-obviousness of the `868 and `698 patent squarely contradict arguments and representations Amgen made to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in reliance on this Court's decision in Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 13 U.S.P.Q.2d 1737 (D. Mass. 1989). For example, Amgen argued to the Board, relying on this Court's decision, that there was "no distinction" between the process claims of the `868 and `698 patents and the `008 patent claims. Moreover, Amgen admitted that "transforming and transfecting a mammalian host cell" with the DNA sequence of the `008 patent and growing under nutrient conditions "necessarily and inherently involves transcription, translation and glycosylation...to provide the in vivo biologically active recombinant EPO." Amgen's current position -- that the process claims of the `868 and `698 patents are not obvious over the `008 patent claims -- directly contradicts Amgen's prior position. Courts, including this Court, have consistently prohibited parties from making such intentionally contradictory assertions through the application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Based on the foregoing, Roche respectfully requests that this Court invoke that doctrine and preclude Amgen from arguing: (1) (2) (3) (4) that the Lin process claims of the `868 and `698 patent are not obvious over the expired `008 patent claims; that expression of an in vivo biologically active recombinant EPO polypeptide confers patentability; that isolation of an in vivo biologically active recombinant EPO polypeptide confers patentability; that transcription confers patentability; 1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1036

Filed 09/10/2007

Page 3 of 4

(5) (6) (7)

that translation confers patentability; that glycosylation of the EPO polypeptide confers patentability; and that the asserted claims are patentable because production of a biologically active protein was an unexpected result. CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1

I certify that counsel for the parties have conferred in an attempt to resolve or narrow the issues presented by this motion and that no agreement could be reached. Dated: September 10, 2007 Boston, Massachusetts Respectfully submitted, F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. By their Attorneys /s/ Keith E. Toms Leora Ben-Ami (pro hac vice) Mark S. Popofsky (pro hac vice) Patricia A. Carson (pro hac vice) Thomas F. Fleming (pro hac vice) Howard S. Suh (pro hac vice) Peter Fratangelo (BBO# 639775) Vladimir Drozdoff (pro hac vice) David L. Cousineau (pro hac vice) KAYE SCHOLER LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel. [phone] Lee Carl Bromberg (BBO# 058480) Robert L. Kann (BBO# 258025) Julia Huston (BBO# 562160) Keith E. Toms (BBO# 663369) Nicole A. Rizzo (BBO# 663853) Kregg T. Brooks (BBO# 667348) BROMBERG & SUNSTEIN LLP 125 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Tel. [phone] [e-mail]

2

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1036

Filed 09/10/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Pursuant to agreement of counsel dated September 9, 2007, paper copies will not be sent to those indicated as non registered participants. /s/ Keith E. Toms Keith E. Toms
3099/501 737522.1

3