Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.

Decision Date18 March 2016
Docket NumberNos. 2015–1456,2015–1460.,s. 2015–1456
Citation817 F.3d 755
Parties ACORDA THERAPEUTICS INC., Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited, Plaintiffs–Appellees v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Mylan Inc., Defendants–Appellants. AstraZeneca AB, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Theodore B. Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, argued for all plaintiffs-appellees in 2015–1456. Plaintiff-appellee Acorda Therapeutics Inc. also represented by Amir C. Tayrani ; Sylvia Becker, Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC; Soumitra Deka, Daniel DiNapoli, Aaron Stiefel, Jeffrey T. Martin, New York, NY; Anthony Michael, Jane G. Wasman, Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., Ardsley, NY.

Maryellen Noreika, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, for plaintiff-appellee Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited. Also represented by Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jeremy A. Tigan.

Kannon K. Shanmugam, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee in 2015–1460. Also represented by David M. Krinsky, Katherine Moran Meeks, Amy Mason Saharia.

Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by David Zachary Hudson, Edmund Gerard LaCour, Jr. ; Douglas H. Carsten, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, San Diego, CA.

Andrew John Pincus, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Also represented by Paul Whitfield Hughes ; Kathryn L. Comerford Todd, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC.

James Harold Wallace, Jr., Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Generic Pharmaceutical Association. Also represented by A. Claire Frezza, Mark Pacella, Eric Harold Weisblatt.

William M. Jay, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Also represented by Brian Timothy Burgess.

Christopher J. Glancy, White & Case LLP, New York, NY, for amicus curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization. Also represented by Adam Gahtan.

David W. Ogden, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Also represented by Thomas Saunders, Thomas Gregory Sprankling; Kevin Scott Prussia, Boston, MA.

Carter Glasgow Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Thomas C. Arthur, Richard D. Freer, Lisa A. Dolak, Megan M. LaBelle. Also represented by Ryan C. Morris, Anna Mayergoyz Weinberg.

Before NEWMAN, O'MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge TARANTO. Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge O'MALLEY.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

These appeals involve two actions brought in the District of Delaware against generic drug manufacturer Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. One, assigned to Chief Judge Stark, was brought by brand-name drug manufacturers Acorda Therapeutics Inc. and Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd.; the other, assigned to Judge Sleet, was brought by brand-name drug manufacturer AstraZeneca AB. The plaintiffs brought the actions under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), alleging that their patents cover drugs that Mylan has sought permission from the Food and Drug Administration to manufacture and market. Mylan moved to dismiss on the ground that Delaware could not (and so the federal court may not) exercise personal jurisdiction—either general or specific personal jurisdiction—over Mylan in these cases. Chief Judge Stark and Judge Sleet denied the motions. Although they reached different conclusions about whether Delaware could exercise general personal jurisdiction over Mylan based on consent given in registering to do business in the State, they both concluded that Delaware could exercise specific personal jurisdiction, based on Mylan's suit-related contacts with Delaware. On interlocutory appeal, we affirm, holding that Mylan is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in these cases. We do not address the issue of general personal jurisdiction.


Under the authority of the FDA's approval of its New Drug Application (NDA), 21 U.S.C. § 355(a), (c), Acorda markets Ampyra® to help individuals with multiple sclerosis walk. In seeking approval for Ampyra®, Acorda identified five patents for listing in the FDA's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations publication—the "Orange Book." See 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1) ; 21 C.F.R. §§ 314.3, 314.53. Acorda owns four of the patents and is the exclusive licensee of the fifth, owned by Alkermes. In January 2014, Mylan filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j), seeking approval to market generic versions of Ampyra®. Under paragraph IV of § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii), Mylan certified that Acorda's Orange Book patents for Ampyra® are invalid or would not be infringed by Mylan's marketing of its proposed drug. Acorda and Alkermes then sued Mylan in the District of Delaware for patent infringement, invoking the declaration of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) that the submission of a paragraph IV certification constitutes an act of infringement.1

AstraZeneca markets FDA-approved Onglyza® and Kombiglyze™ to help individuals with type II diabetes. AstraZeneca owns three patents listed in the Orange Book for those drugs. Mylan filed two ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of the two drugs and certified that AstraZeneca's three patents are invalid or would not be infringed by Mylan's marketing of its proposed drugs. AstraZeneca sued Mylan for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) in the District of Delaware.

Mylan filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) on the ground that the State of Delaware could not—and therefore, derivatively, the federal district court in Delaware may not—exercise personal jurisdiction over Mylan in these matters under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties do not dispute that the standards of the Due Process Clause control whether there is personal jurisdiction in these matters. Nor do they dispute that the Due Process Clause standards permit a State to exercise either specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a case (based on the connection of the State to the subject matter of the particular case) or general personal jurisdiction over the defendant (based on certain facts even where the case involves subject matter not itself sufficiently connected to the State). The parties have debated both specific and general personal jurisdiction in this case. The debate over the latter issue focuses on Mylan's registration to do business in Delaware as giving consent to the exercise of general personal jurisdiction.

The motions were decided on facts that are not in material dispute. Mylan is incorporated in West Virginia and has its principal place of business there. Mylan submitted its ANDAs to the FDA in Maryland, and it did much if not all of its preparation of its ANDA filings in West Virginia. Regarding the notices of its ANDA filings required by 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(B)(iii), Mylan sent notices to Acorda in New York and Alkermes in Ireland (for the Acorda matter), and it sent notices to AstraZeneca's subsidiary in Delaware and AstraZeneca in Sweden (for the AstraZeneca matter). Mylan has registered to do business and appointed an agent to accept service in Delaware. And, of particular importance, Mylan intends to direct sales of its drugs into Delaware, among other places, once it has the requested FDA approval to market them. The plaintiffs, for their part, also have connections with Delaware: Acorda is incorporated in Delaware, AstraZeneca's U.S. subsidiary has its principal place of business in Delaware, and both Acorda and AstraZeneca have sued other generic manufacturers for infringement of the same patents in Delaware.

Chief Judge Stark (in the Acorda case) and Judge Sleet (in the AstraZeneca case) denied the motions to dismiss. Both judges concluded that Delaware had sufficient contacts related to the subject of these cases that it could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Mylan. See Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 78 F.Supp.3d 572, 593–95 (D.Del.2015) ; AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 72 F.Supp.3d 549, 558–60 (D.Del.2014). The two judges disagreed about whether Delaware could exercise general personal jurisdiction (independent of suit-related contacts) on the ground that Mylan consented to such jurisdiction in registering to do business: they took different views of the status of Supreme Court decisions supporting such jurisdiction, e.g., Pa. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93, 37 S.Ct. 344, 61 L.Ed. 610 (1917), in light of later decisions such as Daimler AG v. Bauman, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 746, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014). See Acorda, 78 F.Supp.3d at 587–90 ; AstraZeneca, 72 F.Supp.3d at 556–57. But the latter disagreement did not alter the finding of personal jurisdiction in these cases.

In each case the district court certified its decision for interlocutory review, and we granted permission to appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and (c)(1).


Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A), the district court has personal jurisdiction over Mylan in these cases if Mylan would be "subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located," here Delaware. And there is no dispute that Mylan would be subject to Delaware courts' jurisdiction under Delaware's long-arm statute, Del.Code Ann. tit. 10, § 3104, as long as Delaware's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Mylan would be consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The jurisdictional dispute therefore turns on the constitutional question, and Mylan makes no argument against jurisdiction other than one based on due-process standards. We decide the question de novo, applying our own (not regional-circuit) law. Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 cases
  • Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • April 18, 2016
    ... ... Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C., Amicus Curaie for The Chamber ... 25, 2015) (citing Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Mylan Inc., 2015 WL 1246285 (D.Del ... Feb. 26, 2015) ; Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 78 ... ...
  • Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • December 20, 2018
    ... ... Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 1993-NMCA-112, 116 N.M. 229, 861 P.2d 270, ... at 95, 37 S.Ct. 344 ; see Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc. , 817 ... ...
  • Freedom Transp., Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • September 26, 2019
    ... ... Great W ... United Corp ., 443 U.S. 173, 180 (1979)). 41. Acorda Therapeutics Inc ... v ... Mylan Pharms ., 817 F.3d 755, 766 (Fed. Cir ... ...
  • Butler v. Daimler Trucks N. Am., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • January 10, 2020
    ... ... DTNA is Daimler Trucks & Buses US Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation whose principal ... 2710, 61 L.Ed.2d 464 (1979) ). 69 Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. , 817 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
3 books & journal articles
  • Tightening the Gilstrap: How "tc Heartland" Limited the Pharmaceutical Industry When it Reined in the Federal Circuit
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Journal of Intellectual Property Law (FC Access) No. 25-2, 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...brand-name manufacturers are generally the plaintiffs in patent infringement suits.147. Id. at 1594. 148. Ainsworth, supra note 20.149. 817 F.3d 755, 757 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 625 (2017).150. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., No. 17-397-LPS, 2017 WL 398015......
  • Case Comments
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association New Matter: Intellectual Property Law (CLA) No. 41-3, June 2016
    • Invalid date the test was easier here because defendant was registered to do business in Delaware. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Parm., Inc., 817 F.3d 755, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2016).PATENTS - PRIORITY DATE A continuation application filed the same day the parent application issues as ......
  • CHAPTER § 3.03 Litigation Practices and Liability
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Regulation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Title CHAPTER 3 Intellectual Property Issues for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
    • Invalid date
    ...of incorporation and principal place of business are paradigm bases for general jurisdiction.") (quotations and citations omitted).[209] 817 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016).[210] Id. at 760.[211] Id. at 762-63.[212] 137 S.Ct. 1514, 1517 (2017).[213] Id. at 1516-17.[214] Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v......

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