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

Filing 1165

DECLARATION re #1162 Brief of Geoffrey M. Godfrey in Support of Amgen's Bench Memorandum and Offer of Proof Regarding No Obviousness-Type Double Patenting by Amgen Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A#2 Exhibit B#3 Exhibit C#4 Exhibit D-1 OF 2#5 Exhibit D-2 OF 2#6 Exhibit E#7 Exhibit F#8 Exhibit F#9 Exhibit H#10 Exhibit I 1 of 3#11 Exhibit I 2 of 3#12 Exhibit I 3 of 3#13 Exhibit J)(Rich, Patricia)

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

Doc. 1165

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1165

Filed 09/26/2007

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) Plaint iff, ) ) 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. ) __________________________________________) AMGEN INC.,

Civil Action No.: 05-12237 WGY

DECLARATION OF GEOFFREY M. GODFREY IN SUPPORT OF AMGEN'S BENCH MEMORANDUM AND OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING NO OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING I, Geoffrey M. Godfrey, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder LLP,

counsel for plaintiff Amgen Inc. I am admitted to practice law before this Court (pro hac vice) and all of the Courts of the State of California. 2. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge. If called to testify as to

the truth of the matters stated herein, I could and would testify competently. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the double patenting

portion of Roche's Response to Amgen's Interrogatory Nos. 9 and 11, served January 11, 2007. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the double patenting

portion of Roche's Supplemental Response to Amgen's Interrogatory Nos. 9 and 11, served February 9, 2007. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the double patenting

787644

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1165

Filed 09/26/2007

Page 2 of 2

portion of Roche's Third Supplemental Response to Amgen's Interrogatory Nos. 9 and 11, served April 2, 2007. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the double patenting

portion of Roche's Fifth Supplemental Response to Amgen's Interrogatory Nos. 9 and 11, served May 1, 2007. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a table listing the claims of U.S. Patent App. No.

06/675,298, grouped according to the PTO's July 3, 1986 restriction requirement. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a table summarizing the differences between each

`008 claim asserted as an ODP reference by Roche and each claim-in-suit from the later-issued `868 and `698 patents. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a document titled

"Amendment," dated October 21, 1985, from the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 4,766,075 (Application No. 06/483,052), to Goeddel et al., assigned to Genentech , Inc. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of pages 195-197, 226-

227, and 231-232 of the transcript of the June 20, 2007 deposition of Dr. Edward E. Harlow. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Exhibit E to a document

titled "Applicant's Second Preliminary Amendment," dated May 24, 1988, from the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 5,441,868. 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of a document titled

"Amendment," dated November 21, 1996, from the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 5,753,486 (Application No. 08/472,549), to Goeddel et al., assigned to Genentech , Inc. Signed this 26th day o f September, 2007. By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Godfrey Geoffrey M. Godfrey

2