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

Filing 1226

BRIEF by Amgen Inc. Bench Memorandum for a Clarifying Preliminary Jury Instruction Relating to Roche's Patent on Pegylated Erthropoietin. (Attachments: #1)(Gottfried, Michael)

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

Doc. 1226

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1226

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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.: 1:05-CV-12237 WGY

AMGEN'S BENCH MEMORANDUM FOR A CLARIFYING PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION RELATING TO ROCHE'S PATENT ON PEGYLATED ERYTHROPOIETIN Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 402 and 403, Amgen requests that this Court issue to the Jury a preliminary instruction on the effect of Roche's peg-EPO patent on whether Roche infringes Amgen's patent. The proposed jury instruction comes from the Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Jury Instruction No. 8.111 and states: Roche contends that its MIRCERA product and process accused of infringement represents an improvement to the inventions described in the Lin patent claims. Proof of this fact does not necessarily mean that the Roche's accused MIRCERA product and process do not infringe Dr. Lin's patent claims. Furthermore, MIRCERA may infringe the Lin patent claims whether or not Roche has a patent that Roche claims covers MIRCERA. Improvements may be separately patentable, yet still infringe another's patent. The tests for infringement remain as I have instructed you. As long as you find that Roche's MIRCERA product and process include all of the limitations of at least one of the asserted patent claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, then you must find that the patent claim(s) will be infringed by Roche's product and process, despite what Roche contends to be improvements. Roche's expert reports show that Roche will argue at trial that because MIRCERA is separately patented, it does not infringe Amgen's prior patents. Separate patentability is not per se relevant

1

Attachment 1 hereto.

MPK 133125-1.041925.0023

1

AMGEN'S BENCH MEMO FOR A PRELIM. JURY INSTRUCTION RE ROCHE'S PATENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-12237 WGY Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1226

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 2 of 4

and Courts have properly excluded such evidence as prejudicial.2 The risk of prejudice is high here. This Court has determined that MIRCERA literally infringes claim 1 of the `422 Patent despite Roche's patent, and Amgen's other allegations of infringement rest on literal infringement. The Jury may be confused by Roche's patent and reach the wrong result. This is particularly true where, as here, this Court has already adjudicated that Roche literally infringes claim 1 of the `422 Patent. Accordingly, Amgen requests that the foregoing preliminary jury instruction be given. DATED: October 1, 2007 Respectfully Submitted, AMGEN INC., /s/ Michael R. Gottfried D. Dennis Allegretti (BBO# 545511) Michael R. Gottfried (BBO# 542156) Patricia R. Rich (BBO# 640578) DUANE MORRIS LLP 470 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Lloyd R. Day, Jr. (pro hac vice) DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER LLP 20300 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 400 Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] William G. Gaede III (pro hac vice) McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

Of Counsel: Stuart L. Watt Wendy A. Whiteford Monique L. Cordray Darrell G. Dotson Kimberlin L. Morley AMGEN INC. One Amgen Center Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-1789 [phone]

2

See Fiskars, Inc. v. Hunt Mfg. Co., 221 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

MPK 133125-1.041925.0023

2

AMGEN'S BENCH MEMO FOR A PRELIM. JURY INSTRUCTION RE ROCHE'S PATENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-12237 WGY

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1226

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 3 of 4

Kevin M. Flowers (pro hac vice) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

MPK 133125-1.041925.0023

3

AMGEN'S BENCH MEMO FOR A PRELIM. JURY INSTRUCTION RE ROCHE'S PATENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-12237 WGY

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1226

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document filed through the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on the above date. /s/ Michael R. Gottfried Michael R. Gottfried

MPK 133125-1.041925.0023

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-12237 WGY