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

Filing 1376

BRIEF by Amgen Inc. = Amgen's Bench Memorandum That Roche Should Be Precluded From Relying On Comparisons Between Peg-EPO and Amgen's Aransep Product Because Such Comparisons Are Irrelevant To Whether Peg-EPO Infringes Amgen's Patents-In-Suit. (Gottfried, Michael)

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

Doc. 1376

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1376

Filed 10/14/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AMGEN INC., ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.: 1:05-cv-12237 WGY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, a Swiss Company, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, a German Company, and HOFFMANN LA ROCHE INC., a New Jersey Corporation,

AMGEN'S BENCH MEMORANDUM THAT ROCHE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM RELYING ON COMPARISONS BETWEEN PEG-EPO AND AMGEN'S ARANESP® PRODUCT BECAUSE SUCH COMPARISONS ARE IRRELEVANT TO WHETHER PEG-EPO INFRINGES AMGEN'S PATENTS-IN-SUIT Amgen expects that as part of its infringement defense, Roche will seek to confuse the jury by comparing Roche's peg-EPO product to Aranesp®, an Amgen product that is not within the scope of the asserted claims of the Lin patents. Currently pending before the court is Amgen's Motion in Limine No. 8: Exclude Roche From Relying On Comparisons Between Roche's Peg-EPO Product and Amgen's Aranesp® Product [Docket Number 841]. Amgen's Motion in Limine No. 8 is fully briefed and the parties' briefs are attached hereto. As described in Amgen's papers, comparisons between Roche's peg-EPO and Amgen's Aranesp® are inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 because such comparisons have no bearing on whether Roche's product infringes the asserted claims of the Lin patents. The only relevant comparison is between Roche's product and the claims of the Lin Patents. Accordingly, Amgen requests that this Court grant its Motion in Limine No. 8 and preclude Roche from misleading and confusing the jury with irrelevant comparisons between peg-EPO and Aranesp®.

1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1376

Filed 10/14/2007

Page 2 of 3

DATED:

October 14, 2007

Respectfully Submitted, AMGEN INC., by its attorneys /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]

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]

2

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 1376

Filed 10/14/2007

Page 3 of 3

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

3