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

Filing 895

MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff Amgen Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff Amgen Inc. from Asserting Outcomes of Prior Litigations Concerning the Validity and Infringement of Certain Claims of the Patents-in-Suit as Evidence and Attorney Argument by F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Hoffmann LaRoche Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brooks, Kregg)

Download PDF
Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al Doc. 895 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 895 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 1 of 2 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 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF AMGEN INC.'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF AMGEN INC. FROM ASSERTING OUTCOMES OF PRIOR LITIGATIONS CONCERNING THE VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT AS EVIDENCE AND ATTORNEY ARGUMENT Defendants F. Hoffmann-La Roche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (collectively "Roche") respectfully submit this Motion For Leave To Reply To Plaintiff Amgen Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff Amgen Inc. from Asserting Outcomes of Prior Litigations Concerning the Validity and Infringement of Certain Claims of the Patents-in-Suit as Evidence and Attorney Argument, filed on August 24, 2007 (Docket No. 869). Roche's proposed reply brief is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In support of this motion, Roche states that its proposed reply brief is limited to two issues raised in Amgen's opposition, is concise, and will be of assistance to the Court. 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 no agreement was reached. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 895 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 2 of 2 Dated: August 30, 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) Robert L. Kann (BBO #258025) 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. (617) 443-9292 kbrooks@bromsun.com 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. (212) 836-8000 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 731328.1 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?