Amgen 2007 Annual Report Download - page 165

AMGEN INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
On April 11, 2006, Roche filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and lack of personal jurisdiction over F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Roche Diagnostics GmbH. Amgen filed
its response to the motions to dismiss on April 25, 2006. On May 10, 2006, oral arguments were held before the
Massachusetts District Court on the motions by Ortho Biotech to intervene in the lawsuit and motions by Roche
to dismiss the lawsuit based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction over
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Roche Diagnostics GmbH. On May 18, 2006, Roche withdrew its motion to
dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction.
On October 20, 2006, the Massachusetts District Court denied Roche’s motion to dismiss based upon lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and denied Ortho Biotech’s motion to intervene in the lawsuit. On October 23,
2006, a scheduling conference was held in which the judge set September 2007 as the target date for the trial to
commence. On November 6, 2006, Roche filed an answer to the complaint in which Roche denies that they in-
fringe the patents-in-suit, assert legal and equitable defenses and counterclaims including non-infringement,
patent invalidity, patent unenforceability, patent misuse, as well as accusing Amgen of violating state and federal
antitrust and unfair competition law. On November 27, 2006, Amgen filed a motion to dismiss Roche’s counter-
claims I-IX and XII and a motion to strike certain of Roche’s affirmative defenses. Roche opposed the motions
on December 8, 2006. On December 15, 2006, Ortho Biotech filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit to overturn the denial of its motion to intervene. On December 20, 2006, the Massachusetts Dis-
trict Court denied Amgen’s motion to dismiss counterclaims I and VI, allowed without prejudice Amgen’s
motion to dismiss counterclaim II and denied Amgen’s motion to strike except Roche’s equitable estoppel de-
fense, for which the court granted the motion to strike without prejudice. On February 26, 2007, the parties filed
a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice Ortho’s appeal before the Massachusetts District Court’s denial of its mo-
tion to intervene.
On March 5, 2007, Amgen and Roche filed opening briefs setting forth respective proposals for the Massa-
chusetts District Court construction of the claims of the patents. On March 7, 2007, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Ortho’s appeal as requested in the parties’ stipulation. On March 19,
2007, the parties filed their responsive briefs with respect to construction of the patent claims. On March 30,
2007, the District Court dismissed Roche’s counterclaim II related to alleged sham litigation and affirmative de-
fense XII relating to equitable estoppel and denied the motion to dismiss Roche’s remaining counterclaims and
affirmative defenses. The Massachusetts District Court also stated that the case would be tried by a jury so long
as Roche’s antitrust counterclaims remain in the case. On April 2, 2007, Roche filed its Amended Answer and
Counterclaims pursuant to the Massachusetts District Court’s March 30 Order. On April 16, 2007, Amgen filed
its Answer to Roche’s Amended Answer and Counterclaims. On April 17, 2007, the Massachusetts District Court
held a Markman Hearing during which the parties presented their proposed constructions of the claims of the
patents-in-suit. The District Court announced its working-construction of many of the claim terms in dispute dur-
ing the April 17, 2007 hearing, but has not yet issued a written decision with respect to claim construction.
On June 5, 2007, the Massachusetts District Court entered the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal of
Amgen’s Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,621,080. During June and July of
2007, the parties filed the following motions for summary judgment:
1. On June 11, 2007, Roche filed its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of Claim 1 of
Patent No. ‘422 and Claims 9 and 12 of Patent No. ‘933.
2. On June 11, 2007, Roche filed its Motion for Summary Judgment that Claim 1 of the ‘422 Patent is In-
valid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
3. On June 11, 2007, Roche filed its Motion for Summary Judgment that Claim 10 of the ‘933 Patent is
Invalid on the Grounds of Failure to Comply with Claim Differentiation Under § 112, paragraph 4.
F-39