United States: Federal Circuit Preserves Plaintiff's Choice Of Forum In Hatch-Waxman Cases

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014), the historical basis for asserting personal jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman cases based on general jurisdiction principles became uncertain, and district courts have struggled to determine the proper basis for jurisdiction under the new standard. On March 18, 2016, the Federal Circuit decided Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and held that future sales by a generic defendant of the patented product at issue is a basis for specific jurisdiction over the defendant. In doing so, the Court preserved the ability of a Hatch-Waxman plaintiff to choose the litigation forum. Further litigation on this issue, including a request for rehearing en banc or a petition for certiorari, appears likely. Until such appeals are exhausted, the best practice for branded pharmaceutical companies is to continue to assert both general and specific jurisdiction as a basis for personal jurisdiction over generic defendants, and to file protective suits in a generic company's place of incorporation or principal place of business.

Background and the Decisions Below

In Daimler, the Supreme Court appeared to limit the applicability of general jurisdiction and defined the relevant inquiry as "not whether a foreign corporation's in-forum contacts can be said to be in some sense 'continuous and systematic,' [but rather] whether that corporation's 'affiliations with the State are so "continuous and systematic" as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.'" Daimler, 134 S.Ct. at 761 (citations omitted). Following Daimler, much of the previous jurisprudence regarding general jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman cases failed, and district courts split as to (1) whether general jurisdiction is still a proper means by which to assert jurisdiction over generic companies, and (2) what factors are properly considered in a determination of specific jurisdiction.

Two Delaware cases, AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals (Judge Sleet) and Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc. (Judge Stark), led the jurisprudence in this area, but differed in their analysis and conclusions regarding both the general and specific jurisdiction questions. AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 72 F. Supp. 3d 549, 552 (D. Del. 2014), motion to certify appeal granted sub nom. AstraZeneca AB v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., No. CV 14-664-GMS, 2014 WL 7533913 (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2014) and aff'd sub nom. Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., No. 2015-1456, 2016 WL 1077048 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2016); Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 572, 576 (D. Del. 2015) aff'd, No. 2015-1456, 2016 WL 1077048 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2016). Both cases were certified for interlocutory appeal and were heard together by the Federal Circuit.

In AstraZeneca, Mylan filed a motion to dismiss challenging the Court's jurisdiction. Judge Sleet held that the Court did not have general jurisdiction over Mylan because Mylan's registration to do business in Delaware and "broad network of third-party contacts within the state" did not rise to the level of activity "'comparable to domestic enterprise in [Delaware].'" AstraZeneca, 72 F. Supp. at 554 (citing Daimler, 134 S.Ct. at 758 n.11 (alteration in original)). However, the Court held that it had specific jurisdiction over Mylan because Mylan's activities – notably, its service of the requisite ANDA notice letter to AstraZeneca in Delaware – were "purposefully directed at AstraZeneca in the state of Delaware." Id. at 560.

Less than two months later, in Acorda, Judge Stark found Mylan subject to both general and specific jurisdiction in Delaware. In deciding Mylan's motion to dismiss, Judge Stark held that Mylan did not have operations in Delaware "of such a type and extent as to render [Mylan] 'at home'" under Daimler, but that Mylan's registration to do business in Delaware was a sufficient basis on which to find that Mylan consented to general jurisdiction. Id. at 583, 591. Judge Stark also held that the Court had specific jurisdiction over Mylan, though on different grounds than those relied upon by Judge Sleet in AstraZeneca. Specifically, Judge Stark held that Acorda's claims "arose out of and relate to Mylan Pharma's activities that are, and will be, directed to Delaware," including Mylan's filing of its ANDA to obtain FDA approval, sending a Paragraph IV notice letter to Acorda (a Delaware corporation), registering to do business in Delaware, registering as a pharmacy wholesaler and distributor with the Delaware Board of Pharmacy, and being a frequent litigant in Hatch-Waxman cases in the Delaware Court. Id. at 593.

The Federal Circuit Addresses Jurisdiction

The Federal Circuit jointly decided the AstraZeneca and Acorda appeals in Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2015-1456, 2015-1460, 2016 WL 1077048 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2016) ("Acorda II "). The Federal Circuit affirmed the assertion of specific jurisdiction in both cases but did not consider the general jurisdiction question.1 In particular, the Court held that the filing of an ANDA with a "Paragraph IV" Certification (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV)) is sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction in a forum where the "minimum contacts" standard set forth by the Supreme Court has been met.

In its decision, the Court noted the unique features of the Hatch-Waxman Act relevant to the jurisdictional question, including the filing of a Paragraph IV Certification. Acorda II, 2016 WL 1077048, at *4. The Court also relied on its Article III precedent in holding that Mylan's ANDA filing and intent to market the drug in Delaware were nonspeculative. Id. at *6. The Court held that Mylan's ANDA filings and Paragraph IV Certifications, and its taking "the costly, significant step of applying to the FDA for approval to engage in future activities — including the marketing of its generic drugs — that will be purposefully directed at Delaware (and, it is undisputed, elsewhere)," were sufficient bases for finding that Mylan had minimum contacts with the state. Id. at *3. The Court explained that "it suffices for Delaware to meet the minimum-contacts requirement in the present cases that Mylan's ANDA filings and its distribution channels establish that Mylan plans to market its proposed drugs in Delaware and the lawsuit is about patent constraints on such in-state marketing." Id. at *6.

Notably, the Court also held that district courts must consider other due process factors set forth by the Supreme Court in determining jurisdiction – including burden on the defendant, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, and the forum state's interest in adjudicating the matter. Id. at *7 (citing World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980)). Here, however, the Court held that the "burden on Mylan will be at most modest, as Mylan, a large generic manufacturer, has litigated many ANDA lawsuits in Delaware, including some that it initiated." The Court further held that upholding jurisdiction would serve plaintiffs' interests because "multiple lawsuits against other generic manufacturers on the same patents are pending in Delaware." Id.

Litigation After Acorda

The Federal Circuit's decision in Acorda preserves the Hatch-Waxman plaintiff's choice of forum. Notably, in sidestepping the general jurisdiction question to focus on specific jurisdiction, the Court shifted the historical basis of jurisdiction in these cases from general jurisdiction to specific jurisdiction. The decision provides some certainty to litigants in determining where they can sue and be sued under the Hatch-Waxman Act, and appears to preserve the pre-Daimler considerations of forum selection. Caution is warranted, however, because of the lack of appellate guidance on the general jurisdiction question and because assertion of specific jurisdiction in such cases is still in its relative infancy. Given the aggressive pursuit of some generic companies (most notably, Mylan) in seeking to limit personal jurisdiction, it would not be surprising if a request for rehearing en banc and/or a petition for certiorari is forthcoming. Accordingly, at least until all appeals are exhausted, the best practice for branded pharmaceutical companies in bringing Hatch-Waxman suits is to assert both general and specific jurisdiction as a basis for jurisdiction and to file protective suits as necessary in the defendant's state of incorporation or principal place of business.

Footnote

1. In her concurring opinion, Judge O'Malley explained that the Court should have addressed the question of general jurisdiction particularly because specific jurisdiction raises more "complexity" as evidenced by her opinion that she "would find specific jurisdiction over Mylan in these cases under a different legal theory than employed by the majority." Acorda II, 2016 WL 1077048, at *8 (O'Malley, J., concurring). In discussing the general jurisdiction inquiry, she noted that Mylan "voluntarily elected to do business in Delaware and to register and elect an agent for service of process in that state" and should therefore be subject to general jurisdiction. Id. at *9. She therefore agreed with Judge Stark that Daimler did not overrule the Supreme Court precedent that a "corporation may consent to jurisdiction over its person by choosing to comply with a state's registration statute." Id. at *10.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions