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

Filing 808

MOTION in Limine To Preclude Amgen Inc. From Making Assertions That Contradict Statements Made in Specifications of Patents-In-Suit by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc..(Brooks, Kregg)

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

Doc. 808

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 808

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION No.: 05-CV-12237WGY ) ) ) ) ) )

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

ROCHE'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE AMGEN INC. FROM MAKING ASSERTIONS THAT CONTRADICT STATEMENTS MADE IN SPECIFICATIONS OF PATENTS-IN-SUIT Based on the positions taken in interrogatory responses and advanced by its experts in their expert reports, plaintiff Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") intends to offer evidence, expert testimony and attorney argument at trial in support of its current assertion that the claims of the patents-insuit1 are not obvious in light of prior art disclosed in the now expired U.S. Patent No. 4,703,008 and U.S. Patent Nos. 5,441,868; 6,618,698; 5,756,349; 5,955,422; 5,547,933; and 5,621,080 ("Amgen's EPO patents"). Many of these arguments and much of the proposed evidence and testimony directly contradict statements made in the common specification of the patents-in-suit regarding prior art. Amgen should not be permitted to represent one thing to the Patent Office to

1

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,441,868; 6,618,698; 5,756,349; 5,955,422; 5,547,933; and 5,621,080.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 808

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 2 of 3

distinguish its "invention" and obtain a patent, only to later disavow those statements in this Court when it becomes convenient for litigation. In accordance with the facts and the principles of law set forth above, Roche respectfully requests that this Court preclude Amgen from offering evidence, testimony or argument that contradicts Amgen's statements made in the specifications of the patents-in-suit regarding prior art. Roche submits an accompanying memorandum of law, and a declaration of Kregg T.

Brooks including exhibits. CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1 I certify that counsel for the parties have conferred in an attempt to resolve or narrow the issues presented by this motion and that no agreement could be reached.

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 808

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 3 of 3

Dated: August 13, 2007 Boston, Massachusetts

Respectfully submitted, F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. By their Attorneys /s/ Kregg T. Brooks Lee Carl Bromberg (BBO# 058480) Timothy M. Murphy (BBO# 551926) Julia Huston (BBO# 562160) Keith E. Toms (BBO# 663369) Nicole A. Rizzo (BBO# 663853) Kregg T. Brooks (BBO# 667348) 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) 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/ Kregg T. Brooks Kregg T. Brooks
03099/00501 722970.1