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

Filing 433

Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to May 15, 2007 to For Amgen to File Its Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Infringement Allegations in Amgen's Expert Reports on Which Amgen Did Not Provide Discovery and to Preclude Testimony by Amgen Inc..(Rich, Patricia)

Download PDF
Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al Doc. 433 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 433 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 1 of 3 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.: 05-12237 WGY ASSENTED-TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR AMGEN TO FILE ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE INFRINGEMENT ALLEGATIONS IN AMGEN'S EXPERT REPORTS ON WHICH AMGEN DID NOT PROVIDE DISCOVERY AND TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY Amgen, Inc. ("Amgen") hereby respectfully request that the Court extend the time for it to file is Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Infringement Allegations in Amgen's Expert Reports on Which Amgen did not Provide Discovery and to Preclude Testimony [Docket No. 425] from Monday, May 14, 2007 to Tuesday, May 15, 2007. As grounds for this motion, Amgen states that the parties are engaged in finalizing their expert discovery and as a result this brief extension is necessary in order for Amgen to complete its opposition. This brief extension will not affect the scheduling order for this matter. Furthermore, Roche has assented to Amgen's filing of this motion. Accordingly, Amgen Inc. respectfully requests that the Court extend the time for it to file is Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Infringement Allegations in Amgen's Expert DM1\1120606.1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 433 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 2 of 3 Reports on Which Amgen did not Provide Discovery and to Preclude Testimony [Docket No. 425] from Monday, May 14, 2007 to Tuesday, May 15, 2007. . May 11, 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 (805) 447-5000 Respectfully Submitted, AMGEN INC., /s/ Patricia R. Rich 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: (617) 289-9200 Facsimile: (617) 289-9201 Lloyd R. Day, Jr. (pro hac vice) DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER LLP 20300 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 400 Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 873-0110 Facsimile: (408) 873-0220 William G. Gaede III (pro hac vice) McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 813-5000 Facsimile: (650) 813-5100 Kevin M. Flowers (pro hac vice) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 474-6300 Facsimile: (312) 474-0448 2 DM1\1120606.1 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 433 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1 I certify that counsel for the Plaintiff has conferred with counsel for the Defendants, F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd., Hoffman LaRoche Inc. and Roche Diagnostics GmbH, in an attempt to resolve the issues presented by this motion and the Defendants have indicated that they assent to the filing of this motion. /s/ Patricia R. Rich Patricia R. Rich 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/ Patricia R. Rich Patricia R. Rich 3 DM1\1120606.1

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?