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

Filing 1366

Amended Proposed Jury Verdict by Amgen Inc.. (Gottfried, Michael)

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

Doc. 1366

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1366

Filed 10/14/2007

Page 1 of 6

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

PLAINTIFF'S [AMENDED PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT Plaintiff respectfully submits this Amended Proposed Verdict Form.

1

JURY VERDICT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-12237 WGY
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1366

Filed 10/14/2007

Page 2 of 6

1. Considering each claim separately, has Roche established by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims are invalid? Please circle the box that reflects your verdict. Circling "Invalid" is an answer for Roche and circling "Valid" is an answer for Amgen. VALIDITY WHO MUST PROVE BURDEN OF PROOF Patent No. 5,955,422 Claim 1 Patent No. 5,547,933 Claim 3 Claim 7 Claim 8 Claim 9 Claim 11 Claim 12 Claim 14 Patent No. 5,441,868 Claim 1 Claim 2 Patent No. 5,618,698 Claim 6 Claim 7 Claim 8 Claim 9 Patent No. 5,756,349 Claim 7 Invalid Valid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Valid Valid Valid Valid Invalid Invalid Valid Valid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Invalid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Invalid Valid Roche Clear and Convincing (For Roche) (For Amgen)

_____________________ Date

___________________________ Foreperson

2

JURY VERDICT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-12237 WGY

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1366

Filed 10/14/2007

Page 3 of 6

2.a. Considering each claim separately, has Amgen established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that any of the following claims will be infringed by Roche? 2.b. If you find no literal infringement for any patent claim, only then should you go on to answer the "Infringement by the Doctrine of Equivalents" question for that claim. Please circle the box that reflects your verdict. Circling "Yes" is an answer for Amgen and circling "No" is an answer for Roche. LITERAL INFRINGEMENT WHO MUST PROVE BURDEN OF PROOF Amgen Fair Preponderance Infringed Not Infringed (For Amgen) (For Roche) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No INFRINGEMENT BY THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS Amgen Fair Preponderance Infringed Not Infringed (For Amgen) (For Roche) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No

Patent No. 5,547,933 Claim 3 Claim 7 Claim 8 Claim 9 Claim 12 Patent No 5,441,868 Claim 1 Claim 2 Patent No 5,618,698 Claim 6 Claim 7 Claim 8 Claim 9 Patent No 5,756,349 Claim 7

____________ Date

________________________ Foreperson

3

JURY VERDICT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-12237 WGY

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1366

Filed 10/14/2007

Page 4 of 6

3. Considering each patent separately, has Roche established by clear and convincing evidence that Amgen, with intent to deceive the Patent Office, failed to disclose material information to the Patent Office or submitted materially false information to the Patent Office, and in so doing, engaged in inequitable conduct during the prosecution of that patent? Please circle the box that reflects your verdict. Circling "Yes" is an answer for Roche and circling "No" is an answer for Amgen. INEQUITABLE CONDUCT WHO MUST PROVE BURDEN OF PROOF Roche Clear and Convincing Inequitable Conduct (For Roche) Patent No 5,955,422 Yes Patent No. 5,547,933 Yes Patent No 5,441,868 Yes Patent No 5,618,698 Yes Patent No 5,756,349 Yes No No No No No (For Amgen)

____________ Date

________________________ Foreperson

4

JURY VERDICT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-12237 WGY

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1366

Filed 10/14/2007

Page 5 of 6

DATED: October 14, 2007 Of Counsel: 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]

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

5

JURY VERDICT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-12237 WGY

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1366

Filed 10/14/2007

Page 6 of 6

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

1

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