View as a webpage to share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli Polsinelli - Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Opinion
         
 

March 2015

 

New Developments in Hatch-Waxman Personal Jurisdiction Cases

 
 
             
 

For more information about this alert, please contact:

 

Mark T. Deming

Author

312.873.3625

Email | Bio

 

Tedd Van Buskirk

Practice Area Chair

Author

646.289.6513

Email | Bio

  

Additional Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Opinion Leaders:

 

Gary E. Hood

Practice Area Chair

312.873.3653

Email | Bio

  

Keith J. Grady

Practice Area Chair

314.552.6883

Email | Bio

  

 

To view a full list of our Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Opinion professionals, click here.

 

For current Intelligence or to learn more about our Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Opinion practice, click here.

  


View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  

SUBSCRIBE

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Inside Law Podcast Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook.

 

   

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana joined the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas in finding specific jurisdiction based on receipt of a Paragraph IV Notice Letter. See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-389 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 12, 2015). For an overview of this developing area of the law, please see our February 2015 update. This latest decision continues the trend of exercising personal jurisdiction over out-of-state Hatch-Waxman filers based in large part on the act of sending a Paragraph IV Notice Letter.

Defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan, Inc., and Mylan Laboratories, Ltd. challenged the Court's jurisdiction over an infringement suit brought by Eli Lilly and Company based on Mylan's filing of an abbreviated new drug application that seeks approval to sell a generic version of Effient®. Following jurisdictional discovery, the Court found Mylan's sending of a Notice Letter to Indiana constituted a sufficient minimum contact with the forum, and that subjecting Mylan to jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

The Court limited its analysis to specific jurisdiction as Eli Lilly conceded the absence of general jurisdiction. The Court recognized the difficulty in applying specific jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman cases given the "artificial" act of infringement, but it rejected Mylan's invitation to decide the question based on where the ANDA filer conducts its development or preparation efforts. Mylan argued the Court should look to "where the ANDA was studied, drafted, compiled, and signed," and noted pre-Daimler decisions in which district courts had found specific jurisdiction based on where ANDA filers designed or tested their products or where they prepared their ANDA submissions. Instead, the Court focused on where the "actual consequences [are] felt" and found that Indiana—as home to one of the Notice Letter recipients—was one such place.

Having decided that sending a Notice Letter was a sufficient minimum contact for specific jurisdiction, the Court turned to whether exercising jurisdiction would be fair. The Court noted that "Mylan frequently sends its employees to Indiana for business purposes" and that "[t]wo of its National Account Managers reside in Indiana." The Court also found Indiana has a substantial interest in resolving the suit, and that exercising jurisdiction over all ANDA filers in Indiana—there were more than a dozen NCE-1 filers in this case—would promote judicial efficiency. All things considered, the Court held it would not be an undue burden for Mylan to litigate in Indiana.

There have also been new developments in the pending petitions for interlocutory appeal in AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 15-117, and Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-124. Last week, in Case No. 15-117, the Court accepted for filing an amicus brief by the Generic Pharmaceutical Association over AstraZeneca's opposition. The Association urged the Federal Circuit to accept the interlocutory appeal given the potential disruption that could result from uncertainty over where Hatch-Waxman filers are properly subject to personal jurisdiction. Today, the Federal Circuit granted both petitions for leave to appeal.

For More Information

Polsinelli attorneys will continue to monitor the Hatch-Waxman litigation landscape for further developments in this area. If you have questions about how personal jurisdiction can affect a Hatch-Waxman case you are involved in or anticipate being involved in, please contact the authors or your Polsinelli attorney.

 
             

             
 

Atlanta  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Edwardsville  Jefferson City  Kansas City  Los Angeles  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  Raleigh  St. Joseph  St. Louis  San Francisco  Springfield  Topeka  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington
polsinelli.com

 
             
 
 

ABOUT POLSINELLI

real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is a first generation Am Law 100 firm serving corporations, institutions, entrepreneurs and individuals nationally. Our attorneys successfully build enduring client relationships by providing practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and with a passion for assisting General Counsel and CEOs in achieving their objectives. Polsinelli is ranked 18th in number of U.S. partners* and has more than 740 attorneys in 20 offices. Profiled by The American Lawyer and ranked as the fastest growing U.S. law firm over a six-year period**, the firm focuses on health care, financial services, real estate, life sciences and technology, energy and business litigation, and has depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at www.polsinelli.com. Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* Law360, March 2014
** The American Lawyer 2013 and 2014 reports

 
 
             
 

Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2015 Polsinelli PC.

 
             
Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Polsinelli - Hatch Waxman Litigation and Opinion Polsinelli Polsinelli - Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Opinion Polsinelli