Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 484 Filed 08/22/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 36317
`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 484 Filed 08/22/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 36317
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`I7-1407—CFC
`C. A. No.:
`CONSOLIDATED
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`GENENTECH, INC. and CITY OF HOPE
`
`Plaintifi’s and Counterclaim
`Defendants,
`
`v.
`
`AMGEN INC.
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`ORDER REGARDING
`STIPULATION AND
`JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF US. PATENT N0. 9,441,035
`
`WHEREAS, Plaintiff Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”) has asserted a claim of patent
`
`infringement against Defendant Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) of claim 2 (“the asserted claim”) of US.
`
`Patent No. 9,441,035 (“the ’035 patent”);
`
`WHEREAS, in its Memorandum Opinion of June 17, 2019, DJ. 401, and accompanying
`
`Order, D.I. 402, the Court construed certain disputed terms in the asserted claim of the ’035
`
`patent;
`
`WHEREAS, the Court rejected Genentech’s construction of the term “wherein the
`
`cystine is at a concentration of from 1.25 to 2.5 mM” to mean “Plain and ordinary meaning. The
`
`recited cystine concentration is the concentration of cystine in the bioreactor;” and instead
`
`determined that the term should be construed as “wherein the cystine is at a concentration of
`
`from 1.25 to 2.5 mM calculated when the cell culture medium is formulated;” D.I. 402 at 2; and
`
`WHEREAS, the Court’s construction of “wherein the cystine is at a concentration of
`
`from 1.25 to 2.5 mM” materially affects Genentech’s infringement analysis for claim 2 of the
`
`’035 patent;
`
`MEI 3|238082v.l
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 484 Filed 08/22/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 36318
`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 484 Filed 08/22/19 Page 2 of 4 PagelD #: 36318
`
`WHEREAS, Genentech’s position is that Amgen infringes claim 2 of the ’035 patent
`
`under Genentech’s construction of “wherein the cystine is at a concentration of fi'om 1.25 to 2.5
`
`mM.” 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 infi'ingement of claim 2 under the Court’s construction of
`
`“wherein the cystine is at a concentration of fiom 1.25 to 2.5 mM.”
`
`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 ’035 patent, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter judgment
`
`ofnon-infi-ingement as to Counts 44 and 45 of Genentech’s First Amended Complaint, D.I. 41
`
`(and the related Count 15 of Genentech’s proposed Second Amended Complaint, should the
`
`Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, D.I. 263), and Count 24 of its First Amended
`
`Complaint in CA. No. l7-147l-CFC, D.I. 39, asserting infringement ofthe ’035 patent by
`
`Amgen in connection with Mvasi.1 Upon entry of final judgment resolving all claims in this
`
`action, Genentech reserves the right to appeal the judgment of non-infi'ingement and the Court’s
`
`claim construction ruling with respect to the phrase “wherein the cystine is at a concentration of
`
`from 1.25 to 2.5 mM.”
`
`2.
`
`Amgen accordingly stipulates to the dismissal of Count 26 of its First Amended
`
`Counterclaims, D.I. 120, for a declaratory judgment that the ’035 patent is invalid, without
`
`prejudice to renew in the event that the Court’s claim construction ruling is altered on appeal or
`
`otherwise in this action.
`
`I The judgment as to these claims will become final upon entry ofjudgment as to all remaining
`claims and counterclaims in these actions.
`
`2
`
`ME] 31238082v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 484 Filed 08/22/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 36319
`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 484 Filed 08/22/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 36319
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR,
`LLP
`
`/s/ Daniel M Silver
`
`Michael P. Kelly (# 2295)
`Daniel M. Silver (# 4758)
`Alexandra M. Joyce (#6423)
`Renaissance Centre
`
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`Tel.: (302) 984-6300
`Fax: (302) 984-6399
`mkelly@mccarter.com
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`ajoyce@mccarter.com
`
`/s/ James L. Higgins
`Melanie K. Sharp (No. 2501)
`James L. Higgins 0%. 5021)
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`msharp@ycst.com
`jhiggins@ycst.com
`movanesian@ycst.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Genentech, Inc.
`and City ofHope
`
`Siegmund Y. Gutman
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`
`2029 Century Park East,
`Suite 2400
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010
`(310) 557-2900
`
`Steven M. Bauer
`
`Kimberly A. Mottley
`Gourdin W. Sirles
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`One International Place
`
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`(617) 526-9600
`
`Attorneysfor Amgen Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul B. Gaffney
`David I. Berl
`
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`
`Teagan J. Gregory
`Charles L. McCloud
`
`Kathryn S. Kayali
`Jonathan S. Sidhu
`
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth St. NW
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 434-5000
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintzfl
`Genentech, Inc.
`
`Daralyn J. Durie
`Adam R. Brausa
`Eric C. Wiener
`Eneda Hoxha
`DURIE TANGRI
`271 Leidesdorff Street
`
`San Francisco, CA 9411 1
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintiflfs‘ Genentech, Inc.
`and City ofHope
`
`MEI 31238082v.l
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 484 Filed 08/22/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 36320
`Case 1:17-cv-01407-CFC Document 484 Filed 08/22/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 36320
`
`ITIS so ORDERED, thiséZDfélayOM 2019.
`United States
`
`ME] 31238082v,l
`
`