Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al
Filing
1342
BRIEF by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc. Roches Bench Memorandum Regarding its Proposed Jury Instructions that Contemporaneous Invention by Others is a Consideration Favoring Obviousness. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Drozdoff, Vladimir)
Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al
Doc. 1342 Att. 1
Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY
Document 1342-2
Filed 10/10/2007
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY
Document 1342-2
Filed 10/10/2007
Page 2 of 3
4.14
FACTORS INDICATING OBVIOUSNESS
Additionally, other objective evidence may favor a finding of obviousness. For example the simultaneous or near simultaneous invention by others of the patented subject matter is a secondary consideration supporting a conclusion of obviousness. Independent making of the invention by persons other than the inventor at about the same time may be evidence that the invention would have been obvious.1 Also, others skilled in the art working toward the same solution to the same problem, or working on a finite number of predictable solutions to the same problem is also evidence supporting a conclusion of obviousness.2
1
AIPLA Model Jury Instruction 7.8; Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co, 227 F.3d 1361, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Monarch Knitting Machinery Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH, 139 F.3d 877, 883-84 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Stewart-Warner Corp. v. City of Pontiac, 767 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Simmonds Precision Prods., Inc. v. United States, 153 U.S.P.Q. 465 (Ct. Cl. 1967). KSR Intern. Co., 127 S.Ct. at 1742.
2
Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY
Document 1342-2
Filed 10/10/2007
Page 3 of 3
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?