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

Filing 486

NOTICE by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc. of Service of Confidential Documents to be Filed in Support of Roche's Motion for Summary Judgment that Claim 1 of the '422 Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. Section 112 (Rizzo, Nicole)

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

Doc. 486

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 486

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

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

CIVIL ACTION No.: 05-CV-12237WGY

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED IN SUPPORT OF ROCHE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT CLAIM 1 OF THE `422 PATENT IS INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. §112 Defendants F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Roche Diagnostics GmbH and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (collectively, "Roche") hereby certify, pursuant to the Protective Order dated February 7, 2007 (Docket No. 274), that it will serve on June 12, 2007, via hand-delivery, on plaintiff Amgen Inc.'s ("Amgen") counsel, Michael R. Gottfried, at Duane Morris LLP, and via overnight mail to Amgen's counsel, Deborah Fishman at Day Casebeer Madrid Bachelder LLP the following Amgen confidential documents, which will be delivered to the Court on June 12, 2007: 1. Allegedly Confidential Exhibit 6 in Support of Roche's Motion for Summary Judgment that Claim 1 of the `422 Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112; 2. Allegedly Confidential Exhibit 7 in Support of Roche's Motion for Summary Judgment that Claim 1 of the `422 Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Amgen has designated these documents as confidential and accordingly, Roche hereby submits these documents for in camera inspection pursuant to the Protective Order because

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 486

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 2 of 3

Amgen has not agreed to Roche's request to file the documents in the public record.

It is

necessary for the Court to review these materials, as they contain important facts and admissions that are highly relevant to the present motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Protective Order, Amgen has four (4) Court days to seek leave of Court pursuant to Local Rule 7.2 if it seeks to have the Court deem such documents confidential and require their filing under seal. Roche will oppose any such motion within two (2) days.

2

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 486

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 3 of 3

Dated: June 11, 2007 Boston, Massachusetts

Respectfully submitted, 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) Robert L. Kann (BBO# 258025) 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) Mark S. Popofsky (pro hac vice) Patricia A. Carson (pro hac vice) Thomas F. Fleming (pro hac vice) Howard S. Suh (pro hac vice) Peter Fratangelo (BBO# 639775) Vladimir Drozdoff (pro hac vice) David L. Cousineau (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/ Nicole A. Rizzo Nicole A. Rizzo

03099/00501 684829.1

3