Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Our attorneys recently secured a favorable jurisdictional decision for Acorda Therapeutics Inc. in its ANDA-related patent infringement action, Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. On January 14, 2015, Chief Judge Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware denied Mylan’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it is neither at home nor subject to specific jurisdiction in Delaware because it is headquartered and incorporated in West Virginia and does not conduct business in Delaware. Addressing “an important question of first impression” on the issue of personal jurisdiction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, the court ruled that Mylan was subject to both general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction in Delaware.
Acorda, which developed and markets Ampyra® to improve walking in multiple sclerosis patients, is suing Mylan and other generic drug manufacturers in the US District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington), on the grounds that they are seeking FDA approval to sell generic versions of Ampyra before patents covering the product expire.
While Judge Stark agreed that Daimler “altered the analysis with respect to general jurisdiction[,]” he found that “Mylan Pharma consented to this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction when it registered to do business and appointed an agent for service of process in the State of Delaware.” On that basis, Mylan was subject to general jurisdiction in Delaware. Judge Stark further concluded that Mylan was in this case subject to specific jurisdiction in Delaware.
Our attorneys involved in the case say Judge Stark’s opinion, beyond being beneficial for our client, may have a major impact on the availability of Delaware as a favored forum in Hatch-Waxman litigation and on the ability of branded pharmaceutical companies to sue multiple ANDA filers in a single forum.