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