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

Filing 1305

Objection to #1078 Brief by Amgen Inc. and Response to Defendants' Offer of Proof Regarding the Testimony of Michael Sofocleous. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Gottfried, Michael)

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

Doc. 1305

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1305

Filed 10/04/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND 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.: 1:05-cv-12237 WGY

AMGEN INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL SOFOCLEOUS This Court has already precluded Roche from offering Mr. Sofocleous's testimony during the validity portion of this trial. The Court should not grant Roche's request for the following reasons. Mr. Sofocleus is incompetent to testify, lacking any personal knowledge of the customs and practices of the PTO during the relevant time period ­ during the prosecution of the patentsin-suit. Mr. Sofocleus's testimony serves to denigrate the PTO and will attempt to improperly undermine the statutory presumption of the validity of the patents-in-suit. Validity is objectively based on prior art and the other requirements of patentability.1 The PTO's most qualified examiner, James Martinell, examined and issued all of the patents-insuit. A heavy presumption based on "the expertise of patent examiners presumed to have done their job.2 Amgen generally objects to the offer of proof because Mr. Sofocleus's testimony: Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citation omitted).
2 1

-1MPK 133238-1.041925.0023

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1305

Filed 10/04/2007

Page 2 of 3

1. Is not based on personal knowledge. He never worked in the examining division of the PTO during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit. 2. Disparages and denigrates the PTO. 3. Is prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and should thus be excluded. 4. Improperly offer generalizations as proof of what happened or did not happen at the PTO. 5. Is irrelevant to the issue of validity. 6. Offers legal opinions. 7. Contains opinions that are legally erroneous. Attached as Exhibit A are Amgen's detailed responses and objections to Roche's offer of proof.

DATED: Of Counsel:

October 4, 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]

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

-2MPK 133238-1.041925.0023

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1305

Filed 10/04/2007

Page 3 of 3

William G. Gaede III (pro hac vice) McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Kevin M. Flowers (pro hac vice) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 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

-3MPK 133238-1.041925.0023