Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Mylan Inc.

Case Name: Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Mylan Inc., Civ. No. 14-777-RGA, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31812 (D. Del. March 16, 2015) (Andrews, J.)

Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Exelon Patch (rivastigmine); U.S. Patents Nos. 6,316,023 (“the ’023 patent”) and 6,335,031 (“the ’031 patent”)

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation having a place of business in West Virginia, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation having a place of business in West Virginia, and had registered as a foreign corporation to do business in Delaware. Mylan filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Why Novartis Prevailed: At the outset, the court made three findings: (i) the Delaware registration statutes require consent to general jurisdiction. Thus, as a factual matter, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. has consented to general jurisdiction; (ii) at least two courts of appeals have expressly upheld, albeit not that recently, the validity of such registration statutes as the basis for consent to general jurisdiction; and (iii) after considering the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler, the court found that “the broad language of the opinions has to be read in the context of the limiting language. … I do not think it appropriate for me to ‘overrule’ Supreme Court precedent that the Supreme Court has not overruled.’”

Ultimately, the court used a “simpler approach” to solve the issue at hand. The only case that considered whether there was specific jurisdiction over Mylan Inc. in the District of Delaware was Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4056 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2015). The Acorda specific jurisdiction analysis as to Mylan Inc. logically would apply to these two cases too. There were no significant differences in the record. Thus, the court permitted jurisdictional discovery as to Mylan Inc. and denied the motions to dismiss as they pertained to Mylan Pharms. Inc.