As to 678, Amgen argues that it should be revoked, and Roche contends that Amgen infringes. The nature of Roche's processes is rather different from those of TKT.ĥ.

Amgen argues that Roche and TKT infringe 605. So far as 605 is concerned, Roche and TKT each contend that it should be revoked their respective arguments for so saying are, in the main, somewhat different, but they are not mutually inconsistent. The registered proprietor of the 605 patent is Amgen, and the registered proprietor of the 678 patent is Roche.Ĥ. For the purpose of these proceedings the precise nature of the interest or involvement of each member of each group does not matter.ģ. Thirdly, there are Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd and Transkaryotic Therapies Inc. Secondly, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Roche Diagnostics Ltd and Genetics Institute Inc. First, there are Kirin-Amgen Inc., Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., Ortho Biotech Inc., Ortho Biotech Products LP and Janssen-Cilag Ltd ('Amgen').

Over ten different parties are concerned in the actions, but they can be effectively divided into three groups. This case comprises a number of conjoined patent actions relating to the protein erythropoietin ('EPO').

Checkit diagnostics smith micro