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

Filing 1363

BRIEF by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc. Roche's Bench Memorandum Requesting Jury Instruction Regarding Amgen's Failure to Proffer Secondary Consideration Evidence of the Failure of Others Similarly Situated to the Inventor. (Fleming, Thomas)

Download PDF
Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al Doc. 1363 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1363 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AMGEN, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 05-CV-12237 WGY F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, LTD., ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC. Defendants. ROCHE'S BENCH MEMORANDUM REQUESTING JURY INSTRUCTION REGARDING AMGEN'S FAILURE TO PROFFER SECONDARY CONSIDERATION EVIDENCE OF THE FAILURE OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TO THE INVENTOR Roche submits this bench memorandum to request that the Court instruct the jury regarding the standard for "failure of others," a secondary consideration of non-obviousness. As Amgen's only offer of proof on this matter is clearly insufficient, Amgen should be foreclosed from arguing to the jury that failure by others is in any way indicative of non-obviousness of the patents-in-suit. For this issue, Amgen only presented evidence through Dr. Orkin and his failure to develop the claimed invention. Roche does not dispute his failure; rather, Amgen has presented no evidence suggesting this failure was due to anything other than the fact that unlike Dr. Lin, Dr. Orkin did not have sufficient amounts of Dr. Goldwasser's EPO protein for sequencing. Dr. Orkin admitted as much in his testimony. (Orkin 1603:20-1604:1, 1604:17-22, 1605:24-1606:1, 1607:23-25, 1649:6-1653:6; TRX 2097). To establish the failure of others one must prove failure of others "similarly situated to the inventor to create the patented subject matter." 1 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1363 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 3 Indecor v. Fox-Wells & Co., Inc., 642 F. Supp. 1473, 1488 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966) and Simmons Fastener Corp. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 739 F.2d 1573, 1574-75 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied 471 U.S. 1065 (1985). In determining similar situation, courts look to when relevant technology used by the inventor first became available. See Carl Schenck, A.G. v. Nortron Corp., 570 F. Supp. 810, 813 (M.D. Tenn. 1982) ("An invention . . . which was discovered after the failure of others in similar efforts is more likely to be non-obvious. Such an inference is rebutted, however, if the invention incorporates an element not previously available to inventors.") For example, the question of whether or not it was obvious to clone erythropoietin has to be measured from when cloning was first enabled. Failure of others is only relevant once all technology enabling the relevant invention is available. As Amgen's sole witness on this topic admits that he lacked sufficient EPO protein to conduct the necessary experiments, Dr. Orkin cannot be considered "similarly situated" to Dr. Lin as Orkin's failure was not due to a lack of inventiveness but a lack of available resources. Accordingly, his failure cannot be linked to any of the claims of the patents-in-suit. In accordance with this memorandum, Amgen has failed to demonstrate failure of others who were similarly situated to Lin at the time of invention. Accordingly, the jury should be instructed in accordance with Roche's proposed jury instructions (see D.I. 1343, Roche's Proposed Jury Instruction 4.11) as well as the principles set forth in this memorandum. 2 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1363 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 3 of 3 DATED: October 12, 2007 F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. By its attorneys, /s/ Patricia A. Carson Leora Ben-Ami (pro hac vice) Patricia A. Carson (pro hac vice) Thomas F. Fleming (pro hac vice) Howard S. Suh (pro hac vice) Christopher T. Jagoe (pro hac vice) Vladimir Drozdoff (pro hac vice) Peter Fratangelo (BBO# 639775) Krista M. Rycroft (pro hac vice) KAYE SCHOLER LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel. (212) 836-8000 and Lee Carl Bromberg (BBO# 058480) Julia Huston (BBO# 562160) Keith E. Toms (BBO# 663369) Nicole A. Rizzo (BBO# 663853) BROMBERG & SUNSTEIN LLP 125 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Tel. (617) 443-9292 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Pursuant to agreement of counsel dated September 9, 2007, paper copies will not be sent to those indicated as non registered participants. /s/ Thomas F. Fleming Thomas F. Fleming 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?