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

Filing 721

MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Support of Opposition to Amgen's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of '422 Claim 1, '933 Claim 3, and '698 Claim 6 by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Defendants' Surreply in Support of Opposition to Amgen's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of '422 Claim 1, '933 Claim 3, and '698 Claim 6#2 Affidavit Declaration of Keith E. Toms in Support of Defendants' Surreply#3 Exhibit Exhibit A to Toms Declaration#4 Exhibit Exhibit B to Toms Declaration#5 Exhibit Exhibit C to Toms Declaration)(Toms, Keith)

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

Doc. 721 Att. 5

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY
7/3/2007 Lodlsh. Harvey

Document 721-6

Filed 07/13/2007
7/3/2007 Lodi.h. Harvey

Page 1 of 2

1 2

Exhibits: 1-21 Volume 1, Pages 1-306
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Ci vil Action No. 05 Ci v. 12237 WGY

1

INDEX
EXANATIONS

2 3
4

3
4

5

AMEN INC.
6

HAVEY F. LODISH, Ph.D.
BY MS. BEN-AMI
7

Plaintiff
vs.
F. HOFF-LA ROCHE LTD.,

5 6 7 8
9

7 8
9

BY MR. DAY

282 296

BY MS. BEN-AM

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GmH, and

10

10

EXHIBITS MAD
Exhibi t 1 Expert Report of Harvey F.
6

HOFF-LA ROCllE INC.
11 12 13
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
14

11 12 13

Defendants

Lodish, Ph.D. Regarding Infringement

Exhibi t 2 Rebuttal Expert Report of
Harvey F. Lodish, Ph.D.

6

15 16
17

Tuesday ¡ July 3, 2007, 9: 04 a. m.
Duane Morris LLP 470 Atlantic Avenue Boston, Massachusetts

HAVEY F. LODISH, Ph.D.

14

15
16 17

Exhibit 3 Supplemental Expert Report
of Harvey F. Lodishi Ph.D.

6

Exhibit 4 Third Supplemental Expert
Report of Harvey F. Lodish, Ph.D.

6

18
19

.. TRASCRIPT DESIGNATED CONFIDENTIAL OUTSDIE ATTORNY'S Eis" S C.,..

FAR ARSENAULT BROCK LLC
20 21 22 23
24

19

Exhibit 5 Claim Construction Chart

6 6 6 6 6

Reporting For:

20
21

Exhibi t 6 U. S. Patent 5,955,422
Exhibit 7 U.S. Patent 5,618.698

LiveNote World Service 221 Main Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, California 94105 Phone: [phone]

22
23
24

Exhibi t 8 U. S. Patent 4,703,008
Exhibit 9 U.S. Patent 5,756,349

Fax: [phone]

Reported by:
JANIS T. YOUNG, RDR, CRR

25

(Continued)

25

713/2007 Lodlsh. Harvey

7/31007 Lodl$h. Harvey

1

APPEACES:
Lloyd R. Day, Jr., Esq.

1

Exhibit 10 U.S. Patent 5,441,868

2 3
4

2 3

Exhibi t 11 U. S. Patent 5,621,080
Exhibit 12 U.S. Patent 5,547,933

6 6

Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder LLP

20300 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino i California 95014
5
6 7

Exhibi t 13 Second Supplemntal Expert
Report of Harvey F. Lodish, Ph.D.

48

5
6 7

408.873.0110 fax: [phone]
irdayßdaycasebeer. com

Exhibit 14 Excerpt from Textbook,

48

Molecular Cell Biology, Sixth

8
9

for Plaintiff

8
9

Edition, by Lodish, et al.
Exhibit 15 Color Pictures from
Attachments to Jorgensen Report

179 200

10 11
12

Leora Ben-~ i Esq.
Graham Pechenik, Esq.
Danielle Noonan i Esq.

10 11

Exhibit 16 Application for United
States Letters Patent, with Cover Sheet dated 12-13-83, AM-ITC

12
13

13
14

Kaye Scholer LLP
425 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, New York 10022-3598

14

00948379-00948649
Exhibit 17 Application for United
States Letters Patent, AM-ITC

15
16 17 18 19

15
16 17 18

200

212.836.8000 fax: [phone]
lbenamekayescholer. com
gpechenikGkayescholer. com
dnoonanGkayescholer. com

00470468-00470531
Exhibit 18 Application for United
States Letters Patent, AM-ITC

200

19 20
21

20
21 22

for Defendants

00470717-00470813
Exhibit 19 Application for United
States Letters Patent, AM-ITC

200

ALSO PRESENT:
Adam Cook i videographer

22 23
24

23
24

00869737-00869844

25

25

(Continued)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY
7/3/2007 Lodish, Harvey

Document 721-6

Filed 07/13/2007
1/312007 Lodi5h, Harvey

Page 2 of 2

1

y.

1

..

2
3
4

2
3

-

I

4

5
6 7

JI

lllJ

5 6

.i

~r ..
~.

rl.

-

.. -

.'

7
8

8
9

10 11
12

'- F'
..

i

..

-

-

. ..' ..
-

JI

9

10 11

R
..

~

.. .

12 13
14
m

13
14

_.
lJ I

T

15 16
17

15

16

..

~

n
- ._-

18

i
."

17 18

~

19
20 21

19 20

Q. Why is the binding affinity of CERA
different than EPO?

22
23
24

-i
-.

T

21 22 23

A. The binding affinity of CERA to the EPO
receptor different from the binding affinity of EPO?

r don't think it is known why. I can offer you one

25

t~
121

24

explanation.
Q. SO the answer is l it i S not known why, but
123

25

713/2007 Lodi.h, Harvey

7131007 Lodi.h, Harvey

-- -,
2 3
4

..

,.-

.. .

1

you have a hypothesis?

,.
..' -

2

A. I have several hypotheses. I will offer

-

3
4 5 6 7 8
9

you one.
Q. Can you offer them all to me?
A. Well, let's go through one at a time.

5
6 7

Q. Okay.
A. ThG first hypothesis is l CERA is a mixture
of 90 percent dead protein and 10 percent functional

8
9

protein. That is, the simplest exlanation of what
happens after PEGylation is, you kill, in some unknown way, roughly 90 percent of the EPO

10
11

10

--

11

12

." --

12 13
14

molecules. They're dQad.

13
14

Wl .
(' ..

~

15
16 17
18

-

."-

15
16

'" , .
..

17
18

19

-_..

19

20 21 22 23
24

20
21

-.....

llr-..
¡j ")

25

..

22

23
24

g~

..

-

11

,.

122

25

j 124