Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC Document 338 Filed 08/08/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 25942
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`AMGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`C.A. No. 18-924-CFC
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,512,983 AND 9,714,293
`
`WHEREAS, Plaintiff Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”) has asserted a claim of patent
`
`infringement against Defendant Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) of claims 2 and 19 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,512,983 (“the ’983 patent”) and of claims 72 and 73 of U.S. Patent No. 9,714,293 (“the ’293
`
`patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Claims”);
`
`WHEREAS, in its Memorandum Opinion of June 14, 2019, D.I. 255, and accompanying
`
`Order, D.I. 256, the Court construed certain disputed terms in the Asserted Claims of the ’983
`
`and ’293 patents;
`
`WHEREAS, the Court rejected Genentech’s construction of the term “a glutamine-free
`
`production culture medium” to mean “a production culture medium that is essentially free of
`
`glutamine,” and instead determined that the term should be construed as “a culture medium used
`
`in the production phase that is not formulated or supplemented with glutamine;” D.I. 256 at 20;
`
`and
`
`
`
`ME1 31105129v.1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION FILED: August 8, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`AMGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`C.A. No. 18-924-CFC
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,512,983 AND 9,714,293
`
`WHEREAS, Plaintiff Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”) has asserted a claim of patent
`
`infringement against Defendant Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) of claims 2 and 19 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,512,983 (“the ’983 patent”) and of claims 72 and 73 of U.S. Patent No. 9,714,293 (“the ’293
`
`patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Claims”);
`
`WHEREAS, in its Memorandum Opinion of June 14, 2019, D.I. 255, and accompanying
`
`Order, D.I. 256, the Court construed certain disputed terms in the Asserted Claims of the ’983
`
`and ’293 patents;
`
`WHEREAS, the Court rejected Genentech’s construction of the term “a glutamine-free
`
`production culture medium” to mean “a production culture medium that is essentially free of
`
`glutamine,” and instead determined that the term should be construed as “a culture medium used
`
`in the production phase that is not formulated or supplemented with glutamine;” D.I. 256 at 20;
`
`and
`
`
`
`ME1 31105129v.1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION FILED: August 8, 2019
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC Document 338 Filed 08/08/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 25943
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the Court’s construction of “a glutamine-free production culture medium”
`
`materially affects Genentech’s infringement analysis for the asserted claims of the ’983 and ’293
`
`patents;
`
`WHEREAS, Genentech’s position is that Amgen infringes the asserted claims of the ’983
`
`and ’293 patents under Genentech’s construction of “a glutamine-free production culture
`
`medium.” Amgen disagrees with Genentech’s position; and
`
`WHEREAS, based on the evidence produced by Amgen in discovery, Genentech cannot
`
`sustain its burden of proof to establish infringement of the asserted claims of the ’983 and ’293
`
`patents under the Court’s construction of “a glutamine-free production culture medium.”
`
`NOW THEREFORE, Genentech and Amgen hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of
`
`the Court, as follows:
`
`1.
`
`To conserve judicial resources and to avoid the time and expense of further
`
`litigation related to the ’983 and ’293 patents, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter
`
`judgment of non-infringement as to Counts 26 and 28 of Genentech’s Second Amended
`
`Complaint, D.I. 79 in C.A. No. 18-924-CFC, asserting infringement of the ’983 and ’293 patents
`
`by Amgen in connection with Kanjinti.1 Upon entry of final judgment resolving all claims in
`
`this action, Genentech reserves the right to appeal the judgment of non-infringement and the
`
`Court’s claim construction ruling with respect to the phrase “a glutamine-free production culture
`
`medium.”
`
`2.
`
`Amgen accordingly stipulates to the dismissal of Counts 16 and 18 of its
`
`Counterclaims, D.I. 82, for declaratory judgments that the ’983 and ’293 patents are invalid,
`
`
`1 The judgment as to these claims will become final upon entry of judgment as to all remaining
`claims and counterclaims in these actions.
`
`ME1 31105129v.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC Document 338 Filed 08/08/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 25944
`
`
`
`without prejudice to renewal in the event that the Court’s claim construction ruling is altered on
`
`appeal or otherwise in this action.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Silver
`Michael P. Kelly (No. 2295)
`Daniel M. Silver (No. 4758)
`Alexandra M. Joyce (No. 6423)
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`mkelly@mccarter.com
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`ajoyce@mccarter.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`William F. Lee
`Lisa J. Pirozzolo
`Emily R. Whelan
`Kevin S. Prussia
`Andrew J. Danford
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 526-6000
`william.lee@wilmerhale.com
`lisa.pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com
`emily.whelan@wilmerhale.com
`kevin.prussia@wilmerhale.com
`andrew.danford@wilmerhale.com
`
`Robert J. Gunther Jr.
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`(212) 230-8800
`robert.gunther@wilmerhale.com
`
`ME1 31105129v.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
`
`
`/s/ Eve H. Ormerod
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Eve H. Ormerod (No. 5369)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`eormerod@skjlaw.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Michelle Rhyu
`Susan Krumplitsch
`Daniel Knauss
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5287
`skrumplitsch@cooley.com
`mrhyu@cooley.com
`dknauss@cooley.com
`
`Orion Armon
`COOLEY LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
`(720) 566-4119
`oarmon@cooley.com
`
`Eamonn Gardner
`COOLEY LLP
`4401 Eastgate Mall
`San Diego, CA 92121-1909
`(858) 550-6086
`egardner@cooley.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Amgen Inc
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC Document 338 Filed 08/08/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 25945
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Daralyn J. Durie
`Adam R. Brausa
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 Leidesdorff St.
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 362-6666
`ddurie@durietangri.com
`abrausa@durietangri.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Genentech, Inc. and
`City of Hope
`
`
`DATED: August 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this _________ day of ______________, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`ME1 31105129v.1
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
