Published on:

Judge Robinson denies ANDA defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Judge Sue L. Robinson recently denied Mylan ANDA defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.  Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Inc., Civ. No. 15-960-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2016).  The Court explained that, under Daimler, the defendants’ regular and routine litigation in Delaware and systematic placement of goods into the stream of commerce, including Delaware, were insufficient to establish general jurisdiction over them.  However, the Court explained that it was indisputable that the defendant that served the notice letter and/or other defendants would eventually market their generic product in Delaware upon FDA approval.  This, the Court explained, was a sufficient jurisdictional hook under Delaware’s long-arm statute for specific jurisdiction over the defendant that served the notice letter.  The Court next agreed with the plaintiff that specific jurisdiction over that defendant should be imputed to the one other Mylan defendant under an agency theory, but found that “more information regarding Mylan Inc.’s and Mylan N.V.’s role” was needed to determine whether jurisdiction could be imputed to them, also.  As a result, the Court granted the plaintiff jurisdictional discovery “to determine whether an agency relationship exists between Mylan Inc. and Mylan N.V. and [the defendant that served the notice letter].”

Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Inc., Civ. No. 15-960-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2016)

Contact Information