Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund v. Ipsen Pharma, S.A.S.
770 F. Supp. 2d 24
D.D.C.2011Background
- Tulane and Dr. Coy sued Ipsen for correction of inventorship on GLP-1 patents and for Massachusetts claims of unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust.
- Ipsen moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiffs allege Ipsen Pharma and Biomeasure are the entities through which the inventorship and patent rights were funded and controlled.
- Complex corporate relationships are at issue: Ipsen, Ipsen Pharma, and Biomeasure; prior Louisiana litigation addressed alter ego questions.
- The court must determine if § 293 provides DC jurisdiction over a non-resident patentee through the alleged alter ego relationships.
- The court ultimately held it lacked personal jurisdiction over Ipsen and granted the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 293 grants jurisdiction over Ipsen | Tulane argues Ipsen is a patentee or successor entitled to § 293 jurisdiction. | Ipsen contends it is not a patentee and § 293 does not reach it. | No jurisdiction under § 293 over Ipsen. |
| Whether piercing the corporate veil can establish jurisdiction over Ipsen | Alter ego of Biomeasure or Ipsen Pharma could make Ipsen a patentee for jurisdiction. | Prior Louisiana ruling precludes such alter ego finding; issue preclusion applies. | Veil-piercing failed; no jurisdiction over Ipsen. |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted | Additional discovery could uncover control/alter-ego facts establishing jurisdiction. | Declarations already submitted show independence of subsidiaries; discovery unnecessary. | Denied; discovery not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tulane Educ. Fund v. Biomeasure, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. La. 2009) (addresses alter-ego and jurisdictional questions for Ipsen in Louisiana)
- Diamond Chem. Co. v. Atofina Chems., Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) (two-pronged alter-ego test and need to show unity of interest)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (preclusion; standard for issue preclusion)
- NextWave Pers. Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 130 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (issue preclusion context in subsequent actions)
- Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 332 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2004) (personal jurisdiction burden on plaintiffs; need for concrete facts)
- United States v. Philip Morris Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.D.C. 2000) (jurisdictional fact-finding and evidentiary standards)
- Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (principles of personal jurisdiction and corporate structure)
- GTE N.M. v. Ameritech Corp., 21 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 1998) (jurisdictional pleading standards (see cited context))