Asta Medica, S.A., Application of

Citation981 F.2d 1
Decision Date29 July 1992
Docket Number92-1726,Nos. 92-1663,s. 92-1663
Parties, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1861 In re Application of ASTA MEDICA, S.A., et al., for an Order to Take Discovery of David W. Moriarty, Jr., and for a Subpoena Duces Tecum, for use in Foreign Countries in Civil Proceedings there Pending, Pfizer, Inc. and David W. Moriarty, Jr., Appellants. In re Application of ASTA MEDICA, S.A., et al., for an Order to Take Discovery of Hermann Faubl and for a Subpoena Duces Tecum, for use in Foreign Countries in Civil Proceedings there Pending, Pfizer, Inc. and Hermann Faubl, Appellants. In re Application of ASTA MEDICA, S.A., et al., for an Order to Take Discovery of Thomas Mott Brennan and for a Subpoena Duces Tecum, for use in Foreign Countries in Civil Proceedings there Pending, Pfizer, Inc. and Thomas Mott Brennan, Appellants. In re Application of ASTA MEDICA, S.A., et al., for an Order to Take Discovery of Pfizer, Inc. and Irving Maurice Goldman and for a Subpoena Duces Tecum, for use in Foreign Countries in Civil Proceedings there Pending, Pfizer, Inc. and Irving Maurice Goldman, Appellants. In re Application of ASTA MEDICA, S.A., et al., for an Order to Take Discovery of Barry Malcolm Bloom and Irving Maurice Goldman and for a Subpoena Duces Tecum, for use in Foreign Countries in Civil Proceedings there Pending, Barry Malcolm Bloom and Irving Maurice Goldman, Appellants. to 92-1729. . Heard
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)

Stephen D. Brown, with whom Bernard J. Bonn, III, Timothy C. Blank, Joseph A. Tate, Dechert Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., Rudolf E. Hutz, and Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz, Wilmington, Del., were on brief, for appellants.

Zachary Shimer, with whom Stuart D. Baker, W. Colm McKeveny, Chadbourne & Parke, New York City, Michael A. Nelson, Deborah M. Mann, Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry, Portland, Me., John D. Murnane, Brumbaugh, Graves, Donohue & Raymond, Marvin C. Soffen and Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb & Soffen, New York City, were on brief, for appellees Asta Medica, S.A., Dagra BV, Laboratoires Sarget, S.A., NAPP Laboratories Ltd., and Hovione Sociedade Quimica, S.A.

Before TORRUELLA and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges, and KEETON, * District Judge.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), 1 district courts are authorized to assist foreign and international tribunals, and the litigants before such tribunals, in obtaining discovery in the United States for use in proceedings abroad. In this appeal, we examine whether an applicant under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) has to make a threshold showing, prior to obtaining such discovery, that the information sought in the United States would generally be subject to discovery in the foreign jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the District of Maine held that such a requirement was not necessary and entered an order granting a request for discovery. In re Application of Asta Medica, S.A., 794 F.Supp. 442 (D.Me.1992). We reverse.

I

Appellant Pfizer, Inc. ("Pfizer") is involved in patent litigation proceedings in Europe against Asta Medica, S.A., Laboratories Sarget, S.A., Dagra, BV, and Napp Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively "the foreign companies"), four European pharmaceutical companies. Litigation is pending in France, Belgium, England and the Netherlands over a patent owned by Pfizer for several methods to manufacture the antibiotic doxycycline.

The process of the patent at issue involves homogeneous catalyzed production of doxycycline. The foreign companies assert that Pfizer derived the invention of the process from an Italian company, Ankerfarm, S.p.A. ("Ankerfarm"), in the early 1970's while Pfizer and Ankerfarm negotiated a proposed joint venture involving the new process. In 1971 and 1972, Pfizer employees met with Ankerfarm employees working on the doxycycline processing technology in Milan and allegedly learned the characteristics of the invention. Although the joint venture between Ankerfarm and Pfizer never materialized, Pfizer obtained its own patents on the process. The foreign companies want to establish that the process was in the public domain before Pfizer applied for the patent and therefore, Pfizer's patents are invalid. They, therefore, seek to obtain documents and the testimony of former Pfizer employees who were involved in Pfizer's transactions with Ankerfarm. In July of 1991, they filed an ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the United States District Court for the District of Maine requesting a subpoena compelling David W. Moriarty, a retired employee of Pfizer Inc., to testify by deposition and produce documents. 2 On July 24, 1991, Magistrate Judge Cohen granted the ex parte application and the subpoena was issued. On August 12, 1991, however, Pfizer moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that a private party invoking a district court's assistance under Section 1782 had to show that the requested information was discoverable in the foreign jurisdiction. In an affidavit, Pfizer's general patent counsel asserted that the information sought by the foreign companies in fact would not be available and could not be used in the foreign proceedings.

The foreign companies opposed Pfizer's motion by filing affidavits from foreign lawyers asserting that the evidence was obtainable in each country if the witness was found there. Pfizer responded with affidavits from foreign lawyers maintaining that as a general matter there is no pretrial availability of information from non-party witnesses in France, Belgium, England and the Netherlands. Only in an extraordinary case, where a litigant has obtained judicial approval, may a litigant compel the testimony or production of documents of a non-party witness.

On September 10, 1991, Magistrate Judge Cohen granted Pfizer's motion to quash and rescinded the July 24, 1991 order issuing the subpoena. The foreign companies sought review of the Magistrate Judge's order before the district court.

On May 22, 1992, the district court issued an order vacating the Magistrate Judge's decision and granting the application for an order to take testimony and a subpoena duces tecum. In re Application of Asta Medica, S.A., 794 F.Supp. 442 (D.Me.1992). 3 Pfizer appealed and filed a motion for a stay pending appeal. We granted Pfizer's motion for a stay and heard the appeal on an expedited basis.

II

The proceedings in Europe involve different parties and patents and various stages of prosecution. Since a description of these proceedings is not critical to the resolution of this appeal, we provide only a limited summary of the litigation pending in each country.

A. Proceedings in France

In 1980, Pfizer and its French subsidiary sued the French applicant, Laboratories Sarget, S.A., ("Sarget") for patent infringement. In 1988, the trial court ruled that there was no patent infringement. In April of 1990, the Paris Court of Appeal overturned that ruling and appointed an expert to determine the damages question. An appeal filed by Sarget is currently pending before the Cour de Cassation, France's highest court.

Pfizer asserts that the validity or infringement of the patent is not at issue since the briefing stage of the appeal is complete and the authority of the Cour de Cassation is limited only to issues of law. The foreign companies argue that validity of the patent is relevant to the damages issue.

Pfizer also sued Hovione for patent infringement in Lyon, France. The trial court in Lyon found no infringement, and Pfizer appealed. The companies argue that the evidence sought is pertinent because Hovione is asserting on appeal that Pfizer's patent is invalid.

Finally, Sarget and one of its subsidiaries sued Pfizer in Bordeaux petitioning the court to nullify Pfizer's French patent. 4

B. Proceedings in England

Napp Laboratories, Ltd. ("Napp") has filed a petition asking for the revocation of Pfizer's United Kingdom patents.

According to Pfizer, it has no commercial interest in the English patent and the patent "is already subject to licenses of right that can be obtained by anyone in England." Appellant's Brief at 12. Pfizer asserts that Napp has brought a sham nullity proceeding in England to show in the Section 1782 application that there is a British "proceeding." Napp argues that "[t]he record in the United Kingdom proceeding is also open." Appellees' Brief at 12.

C. Proceedings in Belgium

Pfizer sued Asta Medica, S.A. ("Asta") claiming that Asta infringed its Belgian process patent. The Belgian court referred the matter to a panel of experts who found no infringement of Pfizer's patent. Pfizer is contesting this finding.

D. Proceedings in the Netherlands

A dispute over an application filed by Pfizer for a Dutch patent is pending before the Patent Council in The Hague. The application was originally filed by Ankerfarm in 1973 and assigned to Pfizer by Glaxo Limited Group, a British pharmaceutical firm, pursuant to an agreement dated March 12, 1984. Dagra, BV ("Dagra") is opposing the grant of the patent. On September 10, 1988, Pfizer gave Dagra notice of its intent to sue for infringement upon issuance of its patent.

Pfizer has also brought a separate patent infringement action against Dagra in Amsterdam. This proceeding is pending before the district court in Amsterdam.

Dutch law allows a party to file a request with the court for a preliminary hearing of witnesses to establish a factual basis to bring suit. Dagra filed such a request in order to sue Pfizer under Dutch and European Economic Community antitrust law for Pfizer's use of its patents. Dagra identified a number of witnesses in Europe and the United States. The Dutch trial court denied the request for a preliminary hearing. Dagra appealed, but before the Dutch appellate tribunal ruled on the dispute, Pfizer mooted Dagra's request by waiving its right to enforce its patent in Holland against Dagra, any of its customers and its supplier Hovione.

III The District Court's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • In re Commissioner's Subpoenas, No. 02-10418.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 31 Marzo 2003
    ...requirement established in Trinidad and Tobago in considering a letter rogatory from an English court). See also Application of Asta Medica, S.A., 981 F.2d 1, 5-7 (1st Cir.1992) (providing a thorough explanation of the foreign discoverability Reading Article VII, ¶ 2 of the MLAT to incorpor......
  • Gianoli Aldunate, Application of
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 20 Agosto 1993
    ...a discoverability requirement in section 1782, and that the reasoning in those cases is persuasive. See In re Application of Asta Medica, S.A., 981 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1992); In re Request from Crown Prosecution Service of United Kingdom, 870 F.2d 686, 692-93 & n. 7 (D.C.Cir.1989); Lo Ka Chu......
  • Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 21 Junio 2004
    ...governments, and maintaining parity between litigants. Brief for Petitioner 23-24; Reply Brief 5, 13-14; see In re Application of Asta Medica, S. A., 981 F. 2d 1, 6 (CA1 1992) ("Congress did not seek to place itself on a collision course with foreign tribunals and legislatures, which have c......
  • In re Ishihara Chemical Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 16 Noviembre 2000
    ...explicitly reading a foreign discoverability requirement into § 1782. See Aldunate, 3 F.3d at 60 (disagreeing with In re Asta Medica, S.A., 981 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1992); In re Ministry of Legal Affairs of Trinidad & Tobago, 848 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied sub nom. Azar v. Minister ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • The Growing Circuit Split About ' 1782 ' Can It Be Used For Private Arbitration?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 3 Septiembre 2021
    ...54 (2d Cir. 1993) (no foreign discoverability requirement); In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1998) (same), with In re Asta Medica, 981 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1992) (evidence sought under ' 1782 must be discoverable in forum of underlying dispute); Lo Ka Chun v. Lo TO, 858 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir......
  • The Growing Circuit Split About ' 1782 ' Can It Be Used For Private Arbitration?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 3 Septiembre 2021
    ...54 (2d Cir. 1993) (no foreign discoverability requirement); In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1998) (same), with In re Asta Medica, 981 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1992) (evidence sought under ' 1782 must be discoverable in forum of underlying dispute); Lo Ka Chun v. Lo TO, 858 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir......
2 books & journal articles
  • Foreign discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2016 Contents
    • 8 Agosto 2016
    ...to the type and nature allowed by the foreign tribunal in which the action is located. See In re Application of Asta Medica, S.A. , 981 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1992). 2. The minority view does not limit the nature or type of discovery to that discoverable in the foreign tribunal. See Advanced Micr......
  • Foreign discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Handling Federal Discovery - 2014 Contents
    • 5 Agosto 2014
    ...to the type and nature allowed by the foreign tribunal in which the action is located. See In re Application of Asta Medica, S.A. , 981 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1992). 2. The minority view does not limit the nature or type of discovery to that discoverable in the foreign tribunal. See Advanced Micr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT