vanda pharmaceuticals inc. v. inventia healthcare pvt. ltd., c.a. no. 15-632-gms (d. del. sept. 22,...
Post on 07-Aug-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/20/2019 Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Inventia healthcare PVT. Ltd., C.A. No. 15-632-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2015)
1/5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., )
Plaintiff, )
v
INVENTIA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., )
Defendant. )
C.A. No. 15-362-GMS
ORDER
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the plaintiff Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. ( Vanda ) brought
this action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610 (the ' 610 Patent ) and declaratory
judgment against defendant Inventia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. ( Inventia ) (D.I. 1 ;
WHEREAS, presently before the comi is Inventia's motion to dismiss or transfer filed
on June 29, 2015 (D.I. 7). Inventia argues th t (1) there is no basis for the court to exercise
personal jur isdiction over Inventia under the Delaware Long-Arm Statute, (D.I.
8.
at 4--5 , (2)
there is no basis for the court to exercise personal jurisdict ion
b sed
upon Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(k)(2),
id
at 9-10, and (3) exercising personal jurisdiction over Inventia
would violate the Due Process Clause.
Id
at 5-9. In the alternative, Inventia argues that the
case should be transferred to the Northern District of West Virginia. Id at 10.
WHEREAS, in response, Vanda argues that (1) the court has personal jurisdiction over
Inventia under the Delaware Long-Arm Statute by filing an ANDA application and under the
1
-
8/20/2019 Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Inventia healthcare PVT. Ltd., C.A. No. 15-632-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2015)
2/5
dual jurisdiction theory, (D.I. 12 at 14-16), (2) the court has personal jurisdiction over Inventia
under the Federal Long-Arm Statute, id. at 16-18, and (3) the court has personal jurisdiction
over Inventia under the Federal Due Process Clause. Id. at 7-14. In addition, Vanda asserts that
there is no basis to transfer this case to West Virginia. Id. at 18-20.
The court finds that Inventia has alleged sufficient facts to establish personal jurisdiction.
Specific jurisdiction exists where the defendant has 'purposefully directed' his activities at
residents o the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that 'arise out o or relate
to' those activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 (1985); see also
Nuance Commc
ns,
Inc.
v.
Abbyy Software House,
626 F.3d 1222, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing
Akra Corp.
v.
Luker,
45 F.3d 1541, 1545-46 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). This court has held that the act
o filing an ANDA application that potentially infringes the patent o a Delaware entity provides
sufficient minimum contacts with the state o Delaware under a specific jurisdiction analysis.
AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 72 F Supp. 3d 549, 559-60 (D. Del. 2014) motion to
certify appeal granted sub nom. Astrazeneca
AB
v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.,
No. CV 14-664-
GMS, 2014 WL 7533913 (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2014).
Here, Inventia filed an ANDA application to make generic iloperidone and certified that
it would not wait until the '610 Patent expires. Even though Inventia did not send a Paragraph
IV certification to Vanda in Delaware, as this court emphasized in
AstraZeneca,
jurisdiction
arises from the act o filing an ANDA application, triggering the patent holder's forty-five days
to
initiate a lawsuit.
Id.
at *7. Having found that specific jurisdiction exists under the Delaware
Long-Arm Statute, the court will not address Vanda's dual jurisdiction argument and concludes
that it need not rely on a Federal statutory basis for jurisdiction. See Synthes US.A.) v.
G M
Dos Reis
Jr. Ind.
Com de Equip. Medico,
563 F.3d 1285, 1295-96 (2009) (citing advisory
2
-
8/20/2019 Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Inventia healthcare PVT. Ltd., C.A. No. 15-632-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2015)
3/5
committee notes to the 1993 amendment establishing Rule 4(k)(2)) (explaining that Rule 4(k)(2)
was adopted to provide a forum for federal claims in situations where a foreign defendant lacks
substantial contacts with any single state).
Furthermore, the court finds that the exercise of urisdiction does not violate the Federal
Due Process Clause. The court's exercise of urisdiction must comport with traditional notions
of
fair play and substantial justice.
Int l Shoe Co. v. State o Wash., Office
o
Unemployment
Comp. Placement,
326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citing
Milliken v. Meyer, 311U.S.457
463
(1940)). Vanda would be substantially burdened
if
forced to bring a lawsuit against any ANDA
filer challenging the '610 patent in the location selected by the defendant.
AstraZeneca AB,
72
F
Supp. 3d 549 at 560. Thus, considerations of fair play and substantial justice also justify the
exercise of jurisdiction.
Inventia alternatively moves for a transfer of this action to the Northern District
of
West
Virginia. The statutory authority for transferring venue is§ 1404(a) ofTitle 28, which provides:
For the convenience
of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may
transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought. 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). Courts in the Third Circuit apply the public and private interest factors
outlined in Jumara
v.
State Farm Ins.
Co.
55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995).
With regard to the private interests, courts consider: (1) the plaintiff's choice
of
forum; (2)
the defendant's preferred forum; (3) where the claim arose; (4) the convenience of the
parties; (5) the convenience of the witnesses, but only to the extent that the witnesses may
be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and (6) the location of books and records, but
again, only to the extent that they may be unavailable in one
of
the fora. With regard to the
public interests, courts consider: (1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical
considerations that could make the trial easier, quicker, or less expensive; (3) court
congestion; (4) local interest in the controversy; (5) public policies of the fora; and (6) the
trial judge's familiarity with the applicable state law.
3
-
8/20/2019 Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Inventia healthcare PVT. Ltd., C.A. No. 15-632-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2015)
4/5
Pfizer Inc v Apotex Inc.
No. CIV.A. 08-CV-00948LD, 2009 WL 2843288, at *2 (D. Del. Aug.
13,
2009) (citing
Jumara
55 F.3d at 878-79). The burden of establishing the basis for transfer is
the movant's.
Jumara
55 F.3d at 879.
The first factor is neutral here. Vanda brought suits in this District and
in
the Northern
District
of
West Virginia. Vanda contends that the forum where they filed first should control.
However, it is this court's view that the first-filed rule does not apply where the plaintiff
brought identical suits to both districts.
See Pfizer
Inc
v Apotex Inc.
No. CIV.A. 08-CV-
00948LD, 2009
WL
2843288, at *3-4 (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2009). The second factor, the
defendant's preferred forum, weighs in favor
of
transfer. Because Vanda was injured in Delaware,
the third factor weighs against transfer. Convenience also weighs against transfer. While neither
entity maintains a principal place
of
business
in
Delaware, Vanda is already involved in litigation
regarding the '610 in this district. As a result, the witnesses are available here. Inventia fails to
demonstrate that the Northern District
of
Western Virginia is a more convenient location. Thus,
the court finds that the private interest factors weigh in favor of Delaware.
In terms
of
the public interest, since this action is a patent infringement case, local
interests are not implicated. See Magsil Corp.
v
Seagate Tech. No. 08-940, 2009 WL 1259043,
at
2
(D. Del. Apr. 30, 2009).
However,
practical considerations weigh heavily
against
transfer. A
related
case is currently being heard here involving the same patent and drug.
See
Vanda Pharmaceuticals et al v Roxane Laboratories Inc.
C.A. No. 13-1973 (GMS). Thus, it
would be easier, quicker, and less expensive to hear both cases here. Moreover, resolution
of
the
issues relating to the
610
patent in a single district would promote judicial economy and avoid
the possibility
of
inconsistent outcomes. Inventia fails to demonstrate a basis for transfer that
outweighs these interests.
-
8/20/2019 Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Inventia healthcare PVT. Ltd., C.A. No. 15-632-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2015)
5/5
In sum, it is the court s view that Inventia is subject to specific jurisdiction in Delaware.
Vanda s cause
o
action arises out oflnventia s activities, which were purposefully directed at
Vanda in the state o Delaware. Principles o due process support this conclusion. For the
reasons discussed previously, the umara factors weigh against transfer o this case.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Inventia s Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint for Lack
o
Personal Jurisdiction or in the Alternative Motion to Transfer (D.I.
7 is DENIED.
Dated: September 1- 2015
5
top related