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

Filing 442

Statement of Material Facts L.R. 56.1 re #439 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of the '080 Patent (Undisputed Material Facts) filed by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc.. (Huston, Julia)

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

Doc. 442

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 442

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AMGEN INC., Plaintiff, vs. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD; ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GmbH; and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION No.: 05-CV-12237WGY

RULE 56.1 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE `080 PATENT Defendants F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Roche Diagnostics GmbH and Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. (collectively "Roche") submit the following statement of undisputed material facts, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, in support of their motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,621,080 (the "`080 patent") are not infringed. 1. In this action, plaintiff Amgen, Inc. alleges that Roche infringes claims 3,

4 and 6 of the `080 patent. (Pl.'s Supp. Response to Defs.' First Set of Interrogs. (Nos. 1-12) No. 1, at p. 3). 2. Claims 3, 4 and 6 of the `080 patent all contain the operative limitation

"wherein said erythropoietin glycoprotein comprises the mature erythropoietin amino acid sequence of FIG. 6." (`080 patent, claims 3, 4 and 6). 3. The Federal Circuit has construed this limitation to mean "that the claimed

glycoprotein must have -- at minimum -- all 166 amino acids shown in Figure 6." Amgen v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Roche_s Rule 56 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 442

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 2 of 3

4.

Amgen maintains that Roche's accused product is a "165-amino-acid

glycosylated EPO polypeptide." (Expert Report of Harvey F. Lodish, Ph.D. Regarding Infringement, ¶ 117). 5. Amgen asserts that Roche's product "comprises the equivalent of the

mature erythropoietin amino acid sequence of Figure 6 of the `080 Patent because the difference" -- between Roche's product and the 166 amino acids of Figure 6 -- "is insubstantial." (Pl.'s Supp. Resp. to Defs.' First Set of Interrogs. (Nos. 1-12), Ex. A at 46). 6. The Federal Circuit has held that Amgen is foreclosed, by prosecution

history estoppel, from arguing that a 165 amino acid protein can satisfy the "wherein said erythroprotein glycoprotein comprises the mature erythropoietin amino acid sequence of FIG. 6" limitation in the claims of the `080 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Amgen v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 457 F.3d 1293, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Dated: May 21, 2007 Boston, Massachusetts Respectfully submitted, F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. By its attorneys, /s/_Julia Huston__________________ 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] Leora Ben-Ami (pro hac vice) Patricia A. Carson (pro hac vice)

Roche_s Rule 56 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non

2

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 442

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 3 of 3

Thomas F. Fleming (pro hac vice) Howard S. Suh (pro hac vice) Christopher T. Jagoe (pro hac vice) KAYE SCHOLER LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel. [phone] 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 the above date.

/s/ Julia Huston_____ Julia Huston
03099/00501 672036.1

Roche_s Rule 56 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non

3