`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES
`LTD., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., and
`YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
`CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SANDOZ INC. and MOMENTA
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendants.
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`)
`)
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES
`)
`LTD., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., and
`)
`YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
`)
`CO., LTD.,
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendants.
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`MYLAN INC. and NATCO PHARMA LTD.,
`
`C.A. No. 14-1171-GMS
`(CONSOLIDATED)
`
`C.A. No. 14-1278-GMS
`
`ORDER
`
`WHEREAS, on October 6, 2014, the plaintiffs (collectively, "Teva") filed this action
`
`against defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Inc. (collectively, "Mylan"), and Natco
`
`Pharma Ltd. ("Natco") (D.I. 1); 1
`
`WHEREAS, presently before the court is Natco's motion to dismiss the complaint. (D.I.
`
`22.) Natco argues (1) that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Natco; (2) that Teva fails to
`
`1 Citations to docket items refer to the originally filed member case: C.A. No. 14-1278-GMS.
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01278-GMS Document 37 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1174
`
`state a claim with respect to Counts I and III; and (3) that the court lacks subject matter
`
`jurisdiction to adjudicate Counts II and IV (D.1. 23);
`
`WHEREAS, in response, Teva argues that personal jurisdiction exists over Natco-an
`
`Indian company-pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Rule 4(k)(2) states:
`
`Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction. For a claim that
`arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of
`service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if:
`(A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's
`courts of general jurisdiction; and
`(B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United
`States Constitution and laws.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). In its reply, Natco repeatedly concedes that it would be subject to suit in
`
`the Northern District of West Virginia. (D.I. 35 at 2-3 ("[T]his patent infringement suit could be
`
`brought-indeed has been brought-by Teva against Natco[] in the ... Northern District of
`
`West Virginia.").) The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained:
`
`[T]he purposes of Rule 4(k)(2) are best achieved when the
`defendant is afforded the opportunity to avoid the application of
`the rule only when it designates a suitable forum in which the
`plaintiff could have brought suit. [The concern underlying Rule
`4(k)(2) was] with defendants escaping jurisdiction in U.S. federal
`courts while still having minimum contacts with the United States.
`
`Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr, 574 F.3d 1403, 1415 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).
`
`Therefore, "[a] defendant who wants to preclude the use of Rule 4(k)(2) has only to name some
`
`other state in which the suit could proceed." Id. at 1414 (quoting ISi Int'!, Inc. v. Borden Ladner
`
`Gervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 552 (7th Cir. 2001)).
`
`WHEREAS, Natco has identified an alternative federal forum in which it would be
`
`subject to suit. Rule 4(k)(2) does not permit the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over
`
`Natco. Teva's alternative theory-arguing that the court may exercise specific jurisdiction by
`
`virtue ofNatco's relationship to Mylan-is not supported by law. (D.I. 31at10.) Moreover, the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01278-GMS Document 37 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1175
`
`court is not convinced that jurisdictional discovery would yield information capable of affecting
`
`the jurisdictional outcome;
`
`THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Natco's Motion to Dismiss the
`
`Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (D.I. 22) is GRANTED. The court declines to
`
`address the additional arguments raised in Natco's motion.
`
`Dated: March (>-, 2015
`
`3
`
`I
`
`