353 F. Supp. 3d 678
M.D. Tenn.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Nashville General Hospital (NGH) and DC 37 (a multi-state health plan) allege Defendants Momenta and Sandoz conspired to monopolize the U.S. generic enoxaparin market by leveraging Momenta's 886 patent and a profit-sharing collaboration with Sandoz, causing supracompetitive prices for purchasers.
- Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief under the Sherman Act and a variety of state-law antitrust, consumer-protection, and unjust-enrichment claims on behalf of a nationwide putative class.
- Prior litigation in D. Mass. involved Momenta’s 886 patent and actions that temporarily enjoined a competitor (Amphastar); later proceedings resulted in findings of invalidity and ongoing appeal by Defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: (1) under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing to pursue Sherman Act injunctive/declaratory relief; (2) under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over state-law claims; and (3) under Rule 12(b)(6) attacking many state-law claims as time-barred or insufficiently pleaded.
- The Court: granted the 12(b)(1) motion (dismissing federal Sherman Act claims for lack of standing), denied the 12(b)(2) motion (found specific personal jurisdiction in Tennessee over state-law claims), and granted-in-part and denied-in-part the 12(b)(6) motion (many state claims survive; some unjust-enrichment and Alabama claims dismissed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for Sherman Act injunctive/declaratory relief | Plaintiffs allege continuing harm from anticompetitive conduct and risk of future enforcement of the 886 patent, so injunctive relief is warranted | Threat of future enforcement is speculative; District of Massachusetts litigation and elapsed time defeat imminence | Court: No Article III standing; Sherman Act claims dismissed (12(b)(1) granted) |
| Personal jurisdiction over state-law claims | Named Tennessee plaintiff purchased enoxaparin in Tennessee; class action distinctions mean Bristol-Myers does not bar jurisdiction; DC 37’s purchases reach Tennessee members | Bristol-Myers bars exercising jurisdiction over non-Tennessee claims that arose elsewhere | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists as to Tennessee-related claims; Bristol-Myers not applied to this putative class; 12(b)(2) denied |
| Timeliness of state-law claims (statute of limitations) | Continuing violation (ongoing supracompetitive sales) restarts statute with each sale; claims therefore timely | Relevant anticompetitive acts ended by 2012 so limitations ran | Court: Continuing-violation doctrine applies; claims timely; statute defenses rejected |
| State-law pleading/standing and unjust enrichment | Plaintiffs adequately allege intrastate effects, class members in relevant states, and benefit to defendants from overcharges | Many claims lack intrastate nexus, some states limit who may sue, unjust enrichment lacks direct benefit or legal-remedy absence, California disallows unjust-enrichment claim | Court: Intrastate nexus allegations suffice at pleading stage; defer certain standing issues to class-certification stage; unjust-enrichment dismissed where plaintiff failed to allege absence of legal remedy and California unjust-enrichment cause dismissed; Alabama antitrust claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (imminence and concreteness requirements for injury in fact)
- Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat of future injury)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show threatened injury)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (due-process limits on asserting personal jurisdiction over nonresidents)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts and fair play guide personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment analysis for specific jurisdiction)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (forum-connection requirement for specific jurisdiction; distinguished here for class actions)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) (specific jurisdiction over multistate claims based on circulation and in-state harm)
- Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997) (continuing violation in antitrust: each sale restarts statute of limitations)