United States District Court, D. Delaware
March 30, 2015
FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS, LTD., MERZ PHARMA GMBH & CO. KGAA, MERZ PHARMACEUTICALS GMBH, and ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiffs,
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK, LLC, AMERIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AMERIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants.
LEONARD P. STARK District Judge.
WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a 33-page Report and Recommendation (the "Report") (D.I. 108), dated February 26, 2015, recommending that Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Mylan") Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Over the Person ("Motion to Dismiss") (D.I. 25) be denied;
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2015, Mylan objected to the Report ("Objection") (D.I. 117), and specifically objected to the Report's conclusion that Mylan has consented to the general jurisdiction of Delaware courts and, thus, its recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss be denied;
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2015, Plaintiffs responded to the Objections (D.I. 43), and further requested that, "[t]o put this case on as equal a footing as possible with AstraZeneca and Acorda, and to enable the Federal Circuit to address all of them in a unified appellate proceeding if the Federal Circuit so chooses, ... that the Court consider their response to Mylan's objections to Judge Burke's R&R at the Court's earliest convenience" (id. at 9);
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2015, the Court rejected Mylan's arguments regarding its Motion to Dismiss in Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 2015 WL 186833 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2015), finding that Mylan is subject to the general jurisdiction of Delaware courts (for the reasons explained in Acorda);
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, Mylan filed an unopposed Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal of the Court's personal jurisdiction decision in Acorda (C.A. 14-935-LPS D.I. 32);
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2015, the Court granted Mylan's Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal of the Court's decision in Acorda, including the question of whether Mylan's compliance with Delaware's business registration statutes, 8 Del. C. §§ 371 and 376, constitutes consent to general personal jurisdiction in Delaware (C.A. 14-935-LPS D.I. 36);
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2014, the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet granted Mylan's Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal in Astrazeneca AB v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., 2014 WL 7533913 (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2014);
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, the Federal Circuit granted Mylan permission to appeal in Acorda, see Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2015-124, appeal docketed, No. 15-1456 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2015), and AstraZeneca, see AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms Inc., 2015-117, appeal docketed, No. 15-1460 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2015);
WHEREAS, the Court has considered Mylan's Motion to Dismiss de novo, as it presents case-dispositive issues, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), and has further reviewed all of the pertinent filings;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Mylan's Objection (D.I. 117) is OVERRULED, Judge Burke's Report (D.I. 108) is ADOPTED, and Mylan's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 25) is DENIED.
2. Given the detailed reasoning provided in the Report, as well as the lengthy discussion of the jurisdictional issues in Acorda, and further given that Mylan has in the instant case raised no arguments that are not adequately addressed in Judge Burke's report and/or Acorda, the Court finds it unnecessary to address Mylan's Motion to Dismiss or its Objections any further. (See D.I. 117 at 1 n.2) (Mylan recognizing that "[t]his Court recently addressed many of these same jurisdictional arguments in Acorda")
3. Either party may file a motion to certify this Order for interlocutory appeal should it wish to do so.