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

Filing 303

Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages of Markman Briefs by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc..(Rizzo, Nicole)

Download PDF
Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al Doc. 303 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 303 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ____________________________________ AMGEN INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION No.: 05-cv-12237WGY ) ) F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, ) ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GmbH, and ) HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. ) ) Defendants. ) ) ____________________________________) JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERSIZE MARKMAN BRIEFS The parties Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. ("Roche") (collectively "the parties") hereby jointly request leave to file their respective claim construction briefs in excess of the twenty-page limitation established by Local Rule 7.1(b)(4). Specifically, the parties request that the page limit of the principal claim construction briefs and for the responsive claim construction briefs be extended to thirty-five (35) pages. As grounds for this motion, the parties state as follows: 1. Claim construction in this case presents complex factual and legal issues concerning six United States patents that require a thorough and detailed exposition in order to fully and adequately address the meaning of the many claim terms from each asserted patent. 2. Although the parties will endeavor to present a concise argument in both the principal briefs and the responsive briefs, the complex, technical nature of the six patents at issue Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 303 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 2 of 3 necessitates a detailed discussion, which will likely exceed the twenty-page limit of L.R. 7.1(b)(4). CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1 I certify that counsel for the parties have conferred in an attempt to resolve or narrow the issues presented by this motion and that counsel for Amgen has assented to this motion. /s/ Nicole A. Rizzo Nicole A. Rizzo Date: March 1, 2007 AMGEN INC. By its attorneys, /s/ Linda A. Baxley Michael R. Gottfried (BBO# 542156) D. Dennis Allegretti (BBO# 545511) Patricia R. Rich (BBO# 640578) DUANE MORRIS LLP 470 Atlantic Avenue, Ste 500 Boston, MA 02210 Tel. (617) 289-9222 F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. By their attorneys, /s/ Nicole A. Rizzo 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 nrizzo@bromsun.com Leora Ben-Ami (pro hac vice) Mark S. Popofsky (pro hac vice) Patricia A. Carson (pro hac vice) Thomas F. Fleming (pro hac vice) Howard Suh (pro hac vice) Peter Fratangelo (BBO# 639775) KAYE SCHOLER LLP New York, NY 10022 (212) 836-8000 Deborah Fishman Lloyd R. Day, Jr. David M. Madrid Linda A. Baxley DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER LLP 20300 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Ste 400 425 Park Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel. (408) 873-0110 lbaxley@daycasebeer.com 2 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 303 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 3 of 3 William Gaede III MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel. (650) 813-5000 Michael F. Borun Kevin M. Flowers MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Sears Tower Chicago IL 60606 Tel. (312) 474-6300 Stuart L. Watt Wendy A. Whiteford Monique L. Cordray Darrell G. Dotson Kim Morley AMGEN INC. One Amgen Center Dr. Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-1789 (805) 447-5000 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) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on March 2, 2007. /s/ Nicole A. Rizzo Nicole A. Rizzo 03099/00501 625635.1 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?