Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
78 F. Supp. 3d 572
D. Del.2015Background
- Defendants Mylan Pharma and Mylan Inc. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
- Court held it has personal jurisdiction over Mylan Pharma based on consent via Delaware registration and to a lesser extent on specific jurisdiction; general jurisdiction over Mylan Inc. denied pending jurisdictional discovery.
- Mylan Pharma registered to do business in Delaware in 2010, appointed a registered agent, and is thus deemed to have consented to Delaware courts’ jurisdiction.
- Mylan Inc. is not registered to do business in Delaware and has not consented to general jurisdiction; plaintiffs may pursue jurisdictional discovery to examine agency theories and Mylan Inc.’s relation to Mylan Pharma.
- Plaintiffs filed seven related Ampyra patent-ANDA suits in the District of Delaware; this case was filed July 16, 2014 after notice of an ANDA filing.
- Court ordered limited jurisdictional discovery on whether Mylan Inc. is subject to specific jurisdiction via agency theory and denied general jurisdiction for Mylan Inc. pending discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mylan Pharma is subject to general jurisdiction in Delaware | Consent via registration renders general jurisdiction | Daimler limits general jurisdiction to at-home cores or consent via contracts | Yes, based on consent via Delaware registration |
| Whether Mylan Inc. is subject to general jurisdiction in Delaware | Consent via parent-subsidiary control and appointment tactics | Not at home; no registration or consent | No general jurisdiction; jurisdictional discovery allowed for agency theory |
| Whether Mylan Pharma is subject to specific jurisdiction in Delaware | DA and letters directed to Delaware; injury anticipated in forum | Arguments limited; no in-forum mailing | Yes, court may exercise specific jurisdiction over Mylan Pharma |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery is appropriate to determine specific jurisdiction over Mylan Inc. | Agency theory may establish jurisdiction over Inc. | Insufficient current facts; discovery needed | Granted for limited jurisdictional discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits general jurisdiction to at-home corporations; supports consent-based approach not foreclosed)
- Sternberg v. O’Neil, 550 A.2d 1105 (Del. 1988) (registration/statutory consent to jurisdiction via agent appointment)
- Continental Casualty Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., 61 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Del. 1999) (recognizes consent via registration as basis for general jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes due process minimum contacts framework)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (predictability and fair play in jurisdiction analysis; specific jurisdiction focus)
- Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93 (1922) (agency/consent via appointment of agent to receive process)
- Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) (distinguishes consent-based jurisdiction from general in rem/post constitutional framework)