Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In consolidated cases, patent-holder plaintiffs market drugs and have patents in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations publication (Orange Book), 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1). Mylan filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA), 21 U.S.C. 355(j), seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of the drugs, certifying that the Orange Book patents are invalid or would not be infringed by the proposed drugs. The plaintiffs sued in Delaware under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). Mylan is incorporated in, and has its principal place of business in, West Virginia and submitted its ANDAs in Maryland; it intends to direct sales into Delaware, among other places, once it has FDA approval. Mylan sent notices to the plaintiffs in New York, Ireland, Delaware and Sweden. One plaintiff is incorporated in Delaware, the U.S. subsidiary of another has its principal place of business in Delaware. Both have sued others for infringement in Delaware. Each district court concluded that Delaware had sufficient contacts related to the subject of these cases to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Mylan. The judges disagreed about whether Delaware could exercise general personal jurisdiction (independent of suit-related contacts) on the ground that Mylan consented to jurisdiction in registering to do business. Each declined to dismiss. The Federal Circuit affirmed on the issue of specific jurisdiction, declining to address general personal jurisdiction. View "Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharma., Inc." on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, patent-holder plaintiffs market drugs and have patents in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations publication (Orange Book), 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1). Mylan filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA), 21 U.S.C. 355(j), seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of the drugs, certifying that the Orange Book patents are invalid or would not be infringed by the proposed drugs. The plaintiffs sued in Delaware under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). Mylan is incorporated in, and has its principal place of business in, West Virginia and submitted its ANDAs in Maryland; it intends to direct sales into Delaware, among other places, once it has FDA approval. Mylan sent notices to the plaintiffs in New York, Ireland, Delaware and Sweden. One plaintiff is incorporated in Delaware, the U.S. subsidiary of another has its principal place of business in Delaware. Both have sued others for infringement in Delaware. Each district court concluded that Delaware had sufficient contacts related to the subject of these cases to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Mylan. The judges disagreed about whether Delaware could exercise general personal jurisdiction (independent of suit-related contacts) on the ground that Mylan consented to jurisdiction in registering to do business. Each declined to dismiss. The Federal Circuit affirmed on the issue of specific jurisdiction, declining to address general personal jurisdiction. View "Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharma., Inc." on Justia Law

The FDA opened an investigation and sent warning letters to 1-800-GET-THIN and a few surgery centers in California, stating that the FDA believed 1-800-GET-THIN’s LapBand advertising violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., by not providing relevant risk information regarding the LapBand procedure. The district court subsequently granted the government’s ex parte motion to compel production of attorney-client documents. The court agreed with the Sixth Circuit and concluded that, while in camera review is not necessary to establish a prima facie case that the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme, a district court must examine the individual documents themselves to determine that the specific attorney-client communications for which production is sought are sufficiently related to and were made in furtherance of the intended, or present, continuing illegality. Accordingly, the court vacated the order compelling production of all subpoenaed documents so the district court may examine the documents in camera to determine which specific documents contain communications in furtherance of the crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege. View "United States v. Omidi" on Justia Law

Whether a third-party payer (TPP) will cover the cost of a member’s prescription depends on whether that drug is listed in the TPP’s formulary. Pharmacy Benefit Managers prepare TPPs’ formularies of drugs approved for use by TPP members by analyzing research regarding a drug’s cost effectiveness, safety and efficacy. In 1999, the FDA approved Avandia as a prescription for type II diabetes. TPPs included Avandia in their formularies and covered Avandia prescriptions at a favorable rate. GSK downplayed concerns about Avandia’s heart-related side effects. In 2010, the FDA restricted access to Avandia in response to increasing evidence of its cardiovascular risks. TPPs (union health and welfare funds) sued GSK on behalf of themselves and similarly situated TPPs. asserting that GSK’s failure to disclose Avandia’s significant heart-related risks violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on predicate acts of mail fraud, wire fraud, tampering with witnesses, and use of interstate facilities to conduct unlawful activity. They also claimed unjust enrichment and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and other states’ consumer protection laws. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the TPPs adequately alleged the elements of standing. View "In Re: Avandia Mktg.,Sales Practices & Prod. Liab." on Justia Law

GE manufactures Omniscan, an FDA-approved gadolinium-based contrast agent that has been associated in some patients with development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF), a rare and deadly condition that leads to the hardening (fibrosis) of the kidneys. Omniscan was administered to Wahl for two MRIs she received in Nashville in 2006. About one year later, she displayed the first symptoms of NSF. She was officially diagnosed with NSF in 2010. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all pre-trial litigation of Omniscan-related cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In 2011, Wahl filed a complaint in that court. With the agreement of Wahl and GE, the MDL judge transferred the case, in 2013, to the Middle District of Tennessee, the “proper venue.” GE then moved for summary judgment, arguing that all Omniscan doses produced from 2004 to 2006 were marked with expiration dates two years after manufacture, so the Omniscan administered to Wahl must have expired no later than 2008; the Tennessee Products Liability Act’s statute of repose requires suits to be instituted within one year of the expiration date appearing on a product’s packaging. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, favoring GE, applying Tennessee choice-of-law rules. View "Wahl v. Gen. Elec. Co." on Justia Law

AntiCancer, Inc. owns patents for technology related to the imaging of gene expression using a green fluorescent protein linked to a gene promoter. The fluorescent protein is derived from a species of green-glowing jellyfish, Aequorea victoria. The patented inventions are described as useful for drug discovery and evaluation in cancer control and treatment. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement, not on the substantive merits of any issue, but on a procedural aspect at the threshold of the litigation arising from application of the Patent Local Rules of the Southern District of California. The court imposed a fee-shifting sanction as a condition of permitting AntiCancer to supplement the Preliminary Infringement Contentions that found to be defective under Patent Local Rule 3.1. The Federal Circuit vacated the condition and remanded. Considering the language and purposes of the Local Rule, and the record of what Anti-Cancer disclosed in its Contentions and the limited, specific criticisms of the Contentions’ sufficiency, there was no reasonable basis for making the finding of bad faith that would be required to sustain the fees sanction.View "Anticancer Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2012 Schmidt, a former shareholder in Genaera, a biotechnology company that dissolved in 2009 and liquidated its assets, brought suit on behalf of himself and other former shareholders against the liquidating trustee (Argyce); the Genaera Liquidating Trust; Argyce’s CEO and Genaera’s former CFO; former major Genaera shareholders Xmark and BVF; former Genara directors and officers (D&O defendants); and the purchasers of certain Genaera assets. The complaint alleged that the liquidating trustee and the D&O defendants breached their fiduciary duties by disposing of promising drug technologies in tainted insider deals for far less than their true value and that Xmark and BVF aided and abetted this behavior so that companies they controlled could acquire Genaera’s assets at fire sale prices. Schmidt did not dispute the applicability of the two-year statute of limitations and that he filed suit more than two years after the assets were sold, but argued that the limitations period should be tolled under Pennsylvania’s discovery rule because he could not have been aware of the insider nature of the sales or that the assets were sold for below actual value until he learned the details of the sales, and subsequent market events suggested to him that the assets were quite valuable. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit reversed in part, stating that it was premature to determine whether Schmidt exercised reasonable diligence.View "Schmidt v. Skolas" on Justia Law

A.S., who suffers from a congenital birth defect, and his mother, Miller, who ingested Paxil while pregnant, sued GSK in the Philadelphia County Court, alleging that all parties were citizens of Pennsylvania. GSK removed the case based upon diversity. On plaintiffs’ motion, the case was consolidated with other Paxil cases before a district court judge who had previously held that GSK was a citizen of Pennsylvania and who remanded A.S.’s case and the other consolidated cases to state court. The case returned to state court on January 4, 2012. On June 7, 2013, the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Johnson, which held that GSK was a citizen of Delaware. Less than 30 days after the Johnson decision, GSK filed a second notice of removal in A.S.’s case and in eight other cases with the same procedural posture. The district court denied the motion and certified its order for interlocutory review. The Third Circuit directed remand to state court, holding that the second removal request was untimely under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b) because there had been a final order.View "A.S. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp" on Justia Law

Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) was sued in a coordinated proceeding before the San Francisco Superior Court for alleged defects in Plavix, a drug BMS manufactures and sells throughout the country. BMS moved below to quash service of the summons regarding the complaints concerning plaintiffs who are not California residents, for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied BMS’s motion, finding that California had general jurisdiction over BMS, and did not address the issue of specific jurisdiction. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) which limited the application of general jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment, the California Supreme Court remanded to the court of appeals, which affirmed denial of the motion to quash. California does not have general jurisdiction over BMS in this case, but, applying the International Shoe Co. v. Washington test of “fair play and substantial justice,” the court reasoned that BMS has engaged in substantial, continuous economic activity in California, including the sale of more than a billion dollars of Plavix to Californians. That activity is substantially connected to claims by non-residents, which are based on the same alleged wrongs as those alleged by California-resident plaintiffs. BMS has not established that it would be unreasonable to assert jurisdiction over it. View "Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Endo sells Opana® ER extended-release tablets containing a painkiller, oxymorphone. In earlier litigation, Endo sued Roxane and Actavis for patent infringement, 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A), based on their Abbreviated New Drug Applications to market generic versions of Opana® ER. The lawsuits settled; Endo granted defendants a license and a covenant not to sue. After making the agreements the 122 and 216 patents issued to Endo. They are continuations of the same parent application and directed to extended-release oxymorphone compositions and methods of treating pain using those compositions. Endo also acquired the unrelated 482 patent, concerning purified oxymorphone compositions and methods of making those compositions. The asserted patents are listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) entry for Opana® ER. Endo again sued for infringement and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent marketing or sales of generic oxymorphone formulations. The district court held that Endo was estopped from claiming that the activity of defendants, “which has gone on for a substantial period of time, is now suddenly barred because of these new patents.” The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the defendants did not have an express or implied license to practice the patents at issue.View "Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Actavis, Inc." on Justia Law