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

Filing 682

NOTICE by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc. re #678 Reply to Response to Motion, Of Service Of Confidential Documents (Rizzo, Nicole)

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

Doc. 682

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 REPLY TO AMGEN INC.'S OPPOSITION TO 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 #274], that it will serve on July 9, 2007, via hand delivery, on plaintiff Amgen Inc.'s ("Amgen") counsel, Michael Gottfried at Duane Morris LLP, and via overnight delivery, on Amgen's counsel, Deborah Fishman at Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder LLP, the following documents which Amgen (not Roche) has identified as confidential: 1. Confidential versions of Exhibits 2-3 to Declaration of Krista M. Rycroft In Support Of Roche's Reply To Amgen Inc.'s Opposition To Roche's Motion For Summary Judgment that Claim 1 of the `422 Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112; 2. Confidential version of Roche's Reply to Amgen Inc.'s Opposition to Roche's Motion for Summary Judgment that Claim 1 of the `422 Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112; and

Dockets.Justia.com

3.

Confidential version of Roche's Response to Amgen's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of its Opposition to Roche's Motion for Summary Judgment that Claim 1 of the `422 Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Amgen has designated information contained in these documents as confidential and

accordingly, Roche hereby submits these documents for in camera inspection pursuant to the Protective Order because 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 documents, 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

Dated: July 9, 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) Julia Huston (BBO# 562160) Keith E. Toms (BBO# 663369) Nicole A. Rizzo (BBO# 663853) Kimberly J. Seluga (BBO# 667655) 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 700737.1

3