Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
817 F.3d 755
Fed. Cir.2016Background
- Two District of Delaware patent-infringement actions under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) against Mylan for Ampyra and for Onglyza/Kombiglyze inferences of infringement by ANDA filings.
- Mylan filed Rule 12(b)(2) motions arguing Delaware lacked general and specific personal jurisdiction; district judges denied.
- Acorda/Alkermes and AstraZeneca argued Mylan’s ANDA filings and suit-related contacts established Delaware-specific jurisdiction; consent-based general jurisdiction via Delaware registration was disputed.
- Mylan registers to do business in Delaware, designates an agent for service, and plans to direct sales into Delaware; plaintiffs also have Delaware ties (Delaware incorporation, subsidiary presence, or pending suits in Delaware).
- Appeals focus on whether Delaware may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Mylan; general jurisdiction via consent remains contested, with differing district court views.
- This court affirms on the issue of specific personal jurisdiction; general jurisdiction discussion is not resolved in the majority opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mylan is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Delaware. | Acorda/AstraZeneca assert suit-related contacts render Delaware-specific jurisdiction proper. | Mylan contends no sufficient minimum contacts with Delaware for specific jurisdiction. | Yes; Delaware has specific jurisdiction over Mylan. |
| Whether Mylan is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Delaware via consent by registering to do business. | Delaware registration constitutes consent to general jurisdiction. | Daimler overrules or limits consent-based general jurisdiction from registration. | Not decided in majority; general-jurisdiction issue not resolved here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (Supreme Court 1984) (specific jurisdiction based on targeted intentional acts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court 1985) (minimum-contacts test linking forum, defendant, and litigation)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (Supreme Court 2014) (minimum contacts tied to suit-specific connections not just forum-state injury)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court 1980) (purposeful availment and reasonableness factors in venue)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 1945) (establishes minimum contacts standard)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (Supreme Court 2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; discusses consent distinction)
- Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93 (Supreme Court 1917) (consent through registration historically recognized as basis for general jurisdiction)
- Sternberg v. O’Neil, 550 A.2d 1105 (Del. 1988) (Delaware registration consent analysis for general jurisdiction)