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

Filing 1207

DECLARATION re #1206 MOTION To Preclude the Testimony of Dr. Thomas Kadesch Based on Roche's Representation That It Would Not Call Dr. Kadesch At Trial, Or, In The Alternative, To Limit His Testimony Regarding Obviousness-Type Double Patenting To the Two Sentences On This Issue Contained in His Expert Report, Declaration Of Aaron R. Hand by Amgen Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1#2 Exhibit 2#3 Exhibit 3)(Gottfried, Michael)

Download PDF
Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al Doc. 1207 Att. 2 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1207-3 Filed 09/30/2007 Page 1 of 4 Exhibit 2 Dockets.Justia.com HCSEDAK SAMOHT .RD FO TROPER TREPXE LATNEMELPPUS .stnadnefeD dna REDRO EVITCETORP OT TCEJBUS NOITAMROFNI LAITNEDIFNOC SNIATNOC ,.DTL .CNI ,EHCOR AL-NNAMFFOH ,HBMG SCITSONGAID EHCOR ,EHCOR AL-NNAMFFOH .F og YGW 73221-VC-50 .oN noitcA liviC ,ffitnialP ,.CNI ,NEGMA STTESUHCASSAM FO TCIRTSID TRUOC TCIRTSID SETATS DETINU Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1207-3 Filed 09/30/2007 Page 2 of 4 .tnetap 896' dna tnetap 943' eht fo snoitatimil eht ro teem taht sllec gnisu ton saw saw eh fi wonk dluow tra eht ni lliks fo eno taht os liated ym si ti etauqeda edivorp ,woleb dessucsid ton seod snosaer stnetaP negmA eht fo noitacificeps eht taht noinipo eht roF .noitacificeps eno eht fo thgil ni daer nehw mialc eht a ecitcarp dna dnatsrednu ot tra .11 eht ni lliks fo timrep tsum mialc dilav ,etutats siht rednu ,taht dnatsrednu I rettam tcejbus erom ro smialc .noitnevni sih sa sdrager tnacilppa eht hcihw eht gnimialc yltcnitsid dna tuo gnitniop ylralucitrap htiw edulcnoc llahs ]tnetap a fo[ noitacificeps eno :eht taht trap ni etutats seriuqer .01 tnetap eht fo 211 noitceS fo hpargarap dnoces eht taht desivda neeb evah I .woleb htrof tes era hcihw fo .esac na emos ,selpicnirp lagel eseht fo gnidnatsrednu selpicnirp .9 .II ym ot sa yfitset yam I ,deksa fI siht ni krow ym htiw noitcennoc ni htiw em lagel niatrec fo gnidnatsrednu dedivorp sah lesnuoc s'ehcoR DNUORGKCAB LAGEL .gnitnetap elbuod rof dilavni si tnetap 943' eht fo 7 mialc ,eroferehT .tnetap 896' eht fo 4 mialc dna tnetap 943' eht fo 7 mialc neewteb noitcnitsid ."AND retomorp lariv" dna tnacifingis on si ereht ,rehtruF .8 ",AND retomorp niteioporhtyre namuh naht nettirw a rehto ,AND esiwekil era retomorp" sesarhp eht rof noitpircsed kcal smialc esehT .dilavni .7 )"tnetap 896' eht"( 896,816,5 .oN tnetaP .S.U eht fo 5 dna 4 smialC ."secneuqes lortnoc noitpircsnart niteioporhtyre namuh naht rehto secneuqes AND lortnoc noitpircsnart" dna "noitpircsnart lortnoc hcihw eht rof secneuqes AND namuh-non" sesarhp noitpircsed nettirw kcal tnetap 943' eht fo smialc eht ,dnoceS .etinifedni smialc Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1207-3 Filed 09/30/2007 Page 3 of 4 7002 ,1 yaM .troper ym dna stnetaP negmA eht tnaveler ot ygolonhcet eht gnibircsed snoitatneserp sa oediv detareneg retupmoc ro detamina ,sesnopser dna soediv ,smargaid ,strahc llew sa ,stibihxe dna ynomitset noitisoped yrotagorretni ,seirotsih elif rieht dna stnetap eht morf stprecxe ,stnetaP negmA eht morf sgniward dna serugif ,strahc mialc edulcni yam esehT .troper ym ni htrof tes snoinipo ynomitset ·35 eht etartsulli ot B tibihxE ta dehcatta slairetam esoht ym etartsulli ot slairetam evitartsnomed ro/dna gnidulcni ,lairt niatrec esu ta cihparg osla yam I tnetxe eht ro .etairporppa ot ,noitcurtsnoc mialc degnahc siht ni a no desab ,esac siht ni ecnavda yam I hcihw ot ,troper noinipo yna dnema ro tnemelppus ,yfidom thgir eht evreser I .evitatnet si noitcurtsnoc mialc s'truoC eht taht dnatsrednu osla I .strepxe s'ffitnialP eht yb dedivorp snoinipo rehto ot ro ,ffitnialP eht yb desiar srettam yna ot ,em ot elbaliava semoceb taht noitamrofni lanoitidda yna ot esnopser ni snoinipo ym ym tnemelppus ro ot dna ,seunitnoc eht evreser yduts dna noitagitsevni ym sa snoinipo yfidom dnapxe ot thgir Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1207-3 Filed 09/30/2007 Page 4 of 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?