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

Filing 915

Proposed Document(s) submitted by Amgen Inc.. Document received: Amgen Inc.'s Proposed Special Verdict Form. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A (proposed special verdict form))(Rich, Patricia)

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

Doc. 915 Att. 1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 1 of 12

EXHIBIT A [PROPOSED] SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

INFRINGEMENT

Q.1.

Considering each claim separately, did Amgen persuade you that it is more likely than

not that Roche's MICERA product infringes the following claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,547,933 (the " `933 Patent")? (a "yes" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "no" answer is an answer for Roche) Claim 3 Yes________ No___________

Claim 7

Yes________

No___________

Claim 9

Yes________

No___________

Claim 10

Yes

No___________

Claim 11

Yes________

No___________

Claim 14

Yes________

No___________

DM1\1184271.1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 2 of 12

Q.2.

Considering each claim separately, did Amgen persuade you that it is more likely than

not that Roche's MICERA product infringes the following claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,441,868 (the " `868 Patent")? (a "yes" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "no" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 1

Yes________

No___________

Claim 2

Yes________

No___________

Q.3.

Considering each claim separately, did Amgen persuade you that it is more likely than

not that Roche's MICERA product infringes the following claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,618,698 (the " `698 Patent")? (a "yes" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "no" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 6

Yes________

No___________

Claim 7

Yes________

No___________

Claim 8

Yes________

No___________

Claim 9

Yes________

No___________

2
DM1\1184271.1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 3 of 12

Q.4.

Considering each claim separately, did Amgen persuade you that it is more likely than

not that Roche's MICERA product infringes the following claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,756,349 (the " `349 Patent")? (a "yes" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "no" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 7

Yes________

No___________ INVALIDITY `422 Patent

Q.5. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 1 of the `422 patent is anticipated and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche) Yes_________ No___________

Q.6. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 1 of the `422 patent is obvious and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Yes_________

No___________

3
DM1\1184271.1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 4 of 12

Q.7. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 1 of the `422 patent is indefinite and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Yes_________

No___________

Q.8. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 1 of the `422 patent is not enabled and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Yes_________

No___________

`933 Patent

Q.9. Considering each claim separately, did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the `933 patent is anticipated and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 3: Claim 7: Claim 9: Claim 10: Claim 11: Claim 14:

Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ 4

No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________

DM1\1184271.1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 5 of 12

Q.10. Considering each claim separately, did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the `933 patent is obvious and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 3: Claim 7: Claim 9: Claim 10: Claim 11: Claim 14:

Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________

No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________

5
DM1\1184271.1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 6 of 12

Q.11. Considering each claim separately, did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the `933 patent is not enabled and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 3: Claim 7: Claim 9: Claim 10: Claim 11: Claim 14:

Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________

No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________

`349 Patent

Q.12. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 7 of the `349 patent is obvious and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Yes_________

No___________

6
DM1\1184271.1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 7 of 12

Q.13. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 7 of the `349 patent is indefinite and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche) Yes_________ No___________

Q.14. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 7 of the `349 patent fails to meet the written description requirement and is therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche) Yes_________ No___________

Q.15. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 7 of `349 patent is not enabled and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Yes_________

No___________ `868 Patent

Q.16. Considering each claim separately, did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the `868 patent is invalid because of obviousness-type double patenting over any claim of prior U.S. Patent No. 5,703,008? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche) Claim 1: Claim 2: Yes_________ Yes_________ No___________ No___________

Q.17. Considering each claim separately, did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the `868 patent is obvious and therefore invalid?

7
DM1\1184271.1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 8 of 12

(a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 1: Claim 2:

Yes_________ Yes_________

No___________ No___________

`698 Patent Q.18. Considering each claim separately, did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the `698 patent is invalid because of obviousness-type double patenting over any claim of prior U.S. Patent No. 5,703,008? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 6: Claim 7: Claim 8: Claim 9:

Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________

No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________

8
DM1\1184271.1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 9 of 12

Q.19. Considering each claim separately, did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the `698 patent is obvious and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 6: Claim 7: Claim 8: Claim 9:

Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________

No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________

Q.20. Considering each claim separately, did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims in the `698 patent is indefinite and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 6: Claim 7: Claim 8: Claim 9:

Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________

No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________

Q.21. Considering each claim separately, did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the `698 patent fails to meet the written description requirement and is therefore invalid? 9
DM1\1184271.1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 10 of 12

(a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche) Claim 6: Claim 7: Claim 8: Claim 9: Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________

Q.22. Considering each claim separately, did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the `698 patent is not enabled and therefore invalid? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Claim 6: Claim 7: Claim 8: Claim 9:

Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________ Yes_________

No___________ No___________ No___________ No___________

10
DM1\1184271.1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 11 of 12

INEQUITABLE CONDUCT Q.23. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that the `422 Patent is unenforceable because Amgen engaged in inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche)

Yes_________

No___________

Q.24. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that the `933 Patent is unenforceable because Amgen engaged in inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche) Yes_________ No___________

Q.25. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that the `349 Patent is unenforceable because Amgen engaged in inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche) Yes_________ No___________

Q.26. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that the `868 Patent is unenforceable because Amgen engaged in inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche) Yes_________ No___________

11
DM1\1184271.1

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY

Document 915-2

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 12 of 12

Q.27. Did Roche prove by clear and convincing evidence that the `698 Patent is unenforceable because Amgen engaged in inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? (a "no" answer is an answer for Amgen and a "yes" answer is an answer for Roche) Yes_________ No___________

12
DM1\1184271.1