139 F.4th 265
3rd Cir.2025Background
- Amgen Inc., a biotechnology company, sued Celltrion Inc. in the United States and South Korea for alleged patent infringement related to denosumab, a medication for bone cancers.
- Amgen sought discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from Celltrion USA, a subsidiary located in New Jersey, to support its South Korean litigation.
- The magistrate judge granted Amgen's § 1782 application, requiring the parties to negotiate a confidentiality order, but left the precise scope of discovery unresolved.
- Celltrion USA appealed the magistrate judge's order to the district court, which affirmed the order.
- Celltrion USA then filed an immediate appeal to the Third Circuit, asserting that the district court's order was final and thus appealable.
- The Third Circuit had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the scope of discovery under § 1782 had not been conclusively defined.
Issues
| Issue | Amgen's Argument | Celltrion USA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court order granting § 1782 discovery, but leaving the scope undefined, is “final” and appealable under § 1291 | Not final; unresolved scope means no final decision | Final and appealable even if further action remains to define scope | Not final; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1999) (orders granting or denying § 1782 discovery are final and appealable when discovery dispute is fully resolved)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (finality rule tolerates only a single appeal for the whole case)
- Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945) (an order is "final" when it ends the litigation and leaves nothing for the court but execution)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (no appeal lies if matter remains open or unfinished)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (1981) (single appeal rule avoids piecemeal appeals)