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

Filing 413

EXHIBIT re #381 MOTION To Enforce the Court's March 27, 2007 Order and to Compel Deposition Testimony under Rule 30(b)(6) Exhibit B (Part 1 of 2) by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc.. (Toms, Keith)

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 413

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION No.: 05-CV-12237WGY ) ) ) ) ) )

AMGEN INC., Plaintiff, v. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GmbH, and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. Defendants.

Exhibit B in Support of Defendants' Motion to Enforce the Court's March 27, 2007 Order and to Compel Deposition Testimony Under Rule 30(b)(6)
Roche is filing this document in the public record pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Protective Order. Amgen did not file a motion as to why the information is confidential trade secret material within the (4) Court day period of Roche's in camera submission, as required by paragraph 14.
Dated: April 20, 2007 Boston, Massachusetts

/s/ Keith E. Toms___________ 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. [phone] [e-mail]

03099/00501 652200.2

A H F

w UD R o (

WD C T

)

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 413

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 2 of 8

3/29/2007 Watt, Stuart

Exhibit B

1 2 3

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS x

4 5

MGEN INC.,

Plaintiff, 6 vs. 7 8 9 10 . HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE LTD,

)

No. 05 Civ. 12237 WGY

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS, GmbH, and ) OFFMAN-LA. ROCHE INC.,

Defendants. ) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 eported By Susan A. Sullivan, CSR No. 3522 PRS Job No. 118-372540 This transcript contains testimony designated confidential as per Section 5(c) f the Amended Protective Order. Please treat the entire transcript in accordance ith the protective order.) ONFIDENTIAL VIDEOTAPED EPOSITION OF STUART WATT estlake Village, California hursday, March 29, 2007 x

1

S

ab tr cn a o

M A T

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 413

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 3 of 8

3/29/2007 Watt, Stuart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MR. FLOWERS:

Kevin Flowers from the law

firm Marshall, Gerstein & Borun in Chicago, representing Amgen and the witness, Mr. Watt. With me today is Erica Olson from Amgen. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.

Would the court reporter please swear in the witness.

8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17

TUART WATT, alled. as a witness, having been duly sworn by he court reporter, was examined and testified s follows:

HE VIDEOGRAPHER: R. SUH:

Please begin.

Mr. Flowers, did you want to make

statement on the record? R. FLOWERS: Thank you, Mr. Suh, yes. s we discussed before we went on the ecord, Mr. Watt is prepared today to testify n behalf of Amgen in response to Roche's first otice of 30(b)(6) deposition on Topics 2, 26 nd 27, and is also prepared to testify on ehalf of Amgen as to Roche's continued notice f 30(b)(6) deposition as to Topic 2. R. SUH: For the record, I would like to

18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25

5

B v c t I

n w o r g A t 3 Q d f

M Y G N

E

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 413

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 4 of 8

3/29/2007 Watt, Stuart

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15

ote that Roche was aware that Mr. Watt was oing to be designated as a witness with espect to Topic 2 of Roche's first notice of 0(b)(6) deposition. However, with respect to

he remaining topics, based upon my knowledge f the correspondence, this was not made aware o us until literally a few minutes before the eposition. We are prepared to proceed with

he deposition with respect to Topic 2 of the irst: notice and during a subsequent break we ill determine whether we are ready to actually ake Mr. Watt with respect to the remaining opics.

XAMINATION

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Y MR. SUH : ood morning, Mr. Watt. ood morning. r. Watt, can you please tell me what your urrent position is at Amgen. es. My current position is I'm a

ice-president in the law department and Chief ntellectual Property Officer. ow, Mr. Watt, you've had your deposition aken before, correct?

6

A d l

A p b W Q r a t i l I

M D M I

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 413

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 5 of 8

3/29/2007 Watt, Stuart

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

isted amcng the patents in the second paragraph? believe that you are correct, it is not isted. o you have an understanding as to whether mgen is relying upon Section 121 in response to a ouble patent attack on the '868 patent? R. FLOWERS: I will instruct Mr. Watt, I

elieve that invades the attorney-client rivilege and attorney work product doctrine rotection and I will instruct Mr. Watt not to nswer that question on that basis. R. SUH: I think it is discoverable nformation to the extent that he was asked in discovery request. I know the parties have een trying to negotiate supplemental esponses. To the extent that the witness

oday can actually provide supplementation hrough discoverable subject matter, I would ike to get that information.
R. FLOWERS: I

understand what you may

ike to get but my instruction stands. Mr. att is not here to provide an explanation of ll of Amgen's or any of Amgen's contentions in he litigation, he is here as a fact witness. f there's a 30(b)(6) topic that Roche

20

p Y t s M c i w E s n

A Q A Q i d

W D C I N A H I

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 413

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 6 of 8

3/29/2007 Watt, Stuart

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o.

octrine, protected information. nstruct Mr. Watt not to answer.

I will

ctually it is a yes-or-no answer. don't recall a question in those terms,

ave there been any meetings at Amgen hereby the discussion over the length of Amgen's PO patent; was the topic? ot to my knowledge. f you look at a couple paragraphs below r. Sharer's statement, there's a quote there and it ays, "'Because we lacked protection for many of our nventions, we pushed hard to get those patents ssued as soon as possible,' Stuart Watt, Amgen's hief patent counsel, said in a written statement." o you see that? see that, yes. s this a statement you provided to the New ork Times? believe so, yes. an you elaborate on what you meant by this tatement? ell, we for years in the patent office ried to get our patents issued and there's as resented in the file histories of our various

25

p m B d o h t f

A Q a

W Y O M

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 413

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 7 of 8

3/29/2007 Watt, Stuart

1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

This is the end of Tape

Number 1 of the videotaped deposition of Stuart Watt. a.m. (Recess) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the start of The time on the video monitor is 10:07

Tape Number 2 of the videotaped deposition of Stuart Watt. Going back on the record, the

time on the video monitor is 10:17 a.m. Y MR. SUH: r. Watt, Exhibit 6 is the prosecution file istory of the '868 patent. Were you involved at

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19

ne point in the prosecution of the '868 patent? es. kay. And by virtue of your involvement in

he prosecution of the '868 patent, did you become amiliar with the file history? R. FLOWERS: mbiguous. ell, I certainly was familiar with the arts that I was involved with. If you are asking id I go back and look at the complete file history rom the beginning, I don't remember that I did. I ay have, but I don't remember that I did. kay. And I'm just going to ask you a Objection; vague and

20 21 22
23

24 25

41

b a d s t A c P i p h

A Q A a Q

A Y M O T D Y I

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 413

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 8 of 8

3/29/2007 Watt, Stuart

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

re you referring to party Lin or to Dr. Lin imself? t is the same person. ou are absolutely right, it is the same erson. o you recall whether Dr. Lin had any nvolvement in the preparation of this document? R. FLOWERS: mbiguous. his document was filed before I joined mgen so I wouldn't know whether Dr. Lin had any nvolvement in its preparation. kay. I want to direct your attention to Objection; vague and

age 24 of this document and there's a heading here, B, "Summary of Lin's Position." Do you see hat? es. nd under small (iii) on Page 25, I'm going o read this into the record. It states, "While the ount is directed to a process for preparing in vivo iological active EPO using a mammalian host cell ransfected or transformed with an isolated DNA equence in coding human EPO, and the litigation was irected to the purified and isolated DNA sequence nd host cells transfected or transformed thereby,

73