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

Filing 822

MOTION in Limine to Preclude Amgen from Confusing the Jury with Statements Made in Earlier Foreign Proceedings by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc..(Brooks, Kregg)

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

Doc. 822

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 822

Filed 08/16/2007

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 ) ) ) ) ) )

ROCHE'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE AMGEN FROM CONFUSING THE JURY WITH STATEMENTS MADE IN EARLIER FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS Defendants F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (collectively "Roche") move in limine to preclude Amgen from introducing statements taken from earlier foreign proceedings that are likely to confuse the jury and, in any event, are not probative of the issues in the U.S. litigation. At trial, Roche will introduce clear and convincing evidence that Amgen's patents are obvious and thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Roche expects that, in an attempt to confuse the jury, Amgen will seek to introduce statements Roche made in European proceedings regarding, for example, what was "common general knowledge" in the art during the relevant time period. While those statements touch on some of the same evidence relevant to the obviousness inquiry, they were directed to an entirely different concept--namely whether the claims in the European proceedings were supported by the patent specification. Whether a patent is obvious and whether that patent's specification supports or enables its own claims, however, are different inquiries. Because these and others statements from the European proceedings that Roche expects Amgen

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 822

Filed 08/16/2007

Page 2 of 3

to offer will necessarily be taken out of context, the likelihood that they will confuse and mislead the jury outweighs any minimal probative value that the statements may have and should therefore be excluded. In support of this motion, Roche relies on the accompanying memorandum of law and attached 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.

2

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 822

Filed 08/16/2007

Page 3 of 3

Dated: August 16, 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 724374.1

3