throbber
1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`______________________________
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., and
`BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA CORP.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`METRICS, INC., COASTAL
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MAYNE
`PHARMA GROUP LIMITED, and
`MAYNE PHARMA (USA), INC.
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`NO. 14-3962 (JBS)
`
`Defendants.
`______________________________
`UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
`ONE JOHN F. GERRY PLAZA
`4TH AND COOPER STREETS
`CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY 08101
`FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2014
`
`B E F O R E:
`
`THE HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
`CHIEF JUDGE
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
`BY: MELISSA ANNE CHUDEREWICZ, ESQUIRE
`301 Carnegie Center
`Suite 400
`Princeton, New Jersey 08543-5276
`(609) 452-0808
`chuderewiczm@pepperlaw.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`
`LISA MARCUS, RMR, CRR
`CERTIFICATE # 1492
`OFFICIAL U. S. REPORTER
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`SENJU EXHIBIT 2004
`METRICS v. SENJU
`IPR2014-01041
`
`Page 1 of 119
`
`

`

`2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
`BY: CHARLES E. LIPSEY, ESQUIRE
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, Virginia 20190-5675
`(571) 203-2700
`charles.lipsey@finnegan.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
`BY: JUSTIN J. HASFORD, ESQUIRE
`-AND-
`BRYAN C. DINER, ESQUIRE
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`(202) 408-4000
`justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
`BY: JESSICA LEBEIS, ESQUIRE
`3500 Sun Trust Plaza
`303 Peachtree Street, NE
`Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3263
`(404) 653-6400
`jessica.lebeis@finnegan.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`DUANE MORRIS,LLP
`BY: SANDRA A. JESKIE, ESQUIRE
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-4196
`(215) 979-1395
`jeskie@duanemorris.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`DUANE MORRIS,LLP
`BY: MATTHEW C. GAUDET, ESQUIRE
`1075 Peachtree Street, NE
`Suite 2000
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3929
`(404) 253-6902
`mcgaudet@duanemorris.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2 of 119
`
`

`

`3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`DUANE MORRIS, LLP
`BY: VINCENT L. CAPUANO, ESQUIRE
`100 High Street, Suite 2400
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1724
`(857) 488-4250
`vcapuano@duanemorris.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`DUANE MORRIS, LLP
`BY: PATRICK D. MCPHERSON, ESQUIRE
`505 9th Street, NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-2166
`(202) 776-5214
`pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 3 of 119
`
`

`

`4
`
`DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
`THE COURT: Be seated, please.
`Good morning, everybody. This is the case of Senju
`Pharmaceutical Company Limited vs. Metrics Incorporated, et
`al. Limited, Civil Action No. 14-3962. And today's the
`hearing date on two motions, one is the motion by the
`defendants to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and
`one is the motion by the plaintiffs for an injunction against
`the inter partes review.
`And I'll ask counsel to please enter your appearances
`for the record beginning with the plaintiffs.
`MS. CHUDEREWICZ: Good morning, your Honor.
`Melissa Chuderewicz from the law firm of Pepper
`Hamilton serving today as local counsel for the plaintiffs.
`Here with me today, also counsel for the plaintiffs from the
`law firm of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner are
`Charles Lipsey, Mr. Lipsey will be arguing the motion for an
`injunction; Justin Hasford, Mr. Hasford will be arguing
`defendant's motion to dismiss; Brian Diner and Jessica Lebeis.
`THE COURT: Welcome.
`MS. JESKIE: Good morning, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Ms. Jeskie?
`MS. JESKIE: Sandra Jeskie on behalf of the
`defendants, from Duane Morris. And my partner Matt Gaudet,
`Vincent Capuano, and Pat McPherson. Mr. Gaudet will be
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 4 of 119
`
`

`

`5
`
`arguing the motion to dismiss and Mr. Capuano will be arguing
`against the motion to enjoin.
`THE COURT: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
`Well, you've given me an interesting case here.
`Logically I have to determine who I have jurisdiction over
`first. Even though that wasn't the order in which the motions
`were filed, if I were to entertain an injunction, I have to
`make sure that whoever I'm enjoining is under the jurisdiction
`with the Court. Hopefully everyone agrees with that
`principle.
`Personal jurisdiction is somewhat in dispute, and the
`plaintiffs have sought some personal jurisdiction discovery.
`It would seem that with regard to those disputes, that
`discovery, upon reading your papers, would be helpful if it's
`short and precise and tailored to the issues of personal
`jurisdiction. And that then I could permit, you know, a short
`round of supplemental briefing on the personal jurisdiction
`issues if there remain disputes. If personal jurisdiction is
`conceded or if the plaintiff concedes that there is personal
`jurisdiction, then that narrows the disputes. And after your
`supplemental briefing, then I'd be in a position to decide the
`personal jurisdiction motion, and I'd be in a position to
`decide the injunction assuming that there is jurisdiction.
`So in general terms, and I'm open to your suggestions
`on this because you've lived with this case now, I think today
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 5 of 119
`
`

`

`6
`
`can most profitably be spent by starting with the issue, if
`there is one, of discovery of personal jurisdiction. I think
`that there's two parties that there might not be a legitimate
`dispute about personal jurisdiction, I'd like to test that
`theory on the audience. And I'd like to then, assuming there
`is discovery, set what it is to comprise and how quickly it's
`to be done and set a briefing schedule for supplemental
`briefing on the personal jurisdiction issue.
`Since you're here and you're ready to argue and you've
`already fully briefed the injunction issue, I'm prepared to
`hear your arguments on it, of course; I don't think those
`arguments will change depending on the personal jurisdiction,
`assuming that there is personal jurisdiction. And so if you
`would like, I'm certainly prepared and happy to hear the
`arguments, but I don't think that I can decide or rule on the
`injunction motion before I rule on the personal jurisdiction
`motion.
`
`So that's the overall plan that I'm proposing. Do you
`want to speak to it, Mr. Lipsey?
`MR. LIPSEY: At the risk of stealing Mr. Hasford's
`thunder, there's really only one party here who's essential to
`this case going forward and essential to the injunction, and
`that's Metrics. And Metrics is the party that's registered to
`do business and has an agent and unconditionally accepted
`service of process, and I think the Court would be in a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 6 of 119
`
`

`

`7
`
`position to determine that there was at least jurisdiction
`over the essential parties here and certainly the party
`against whom the injunction ought to run if the Court were so
`inclined.
`
`THE COURT: Well, it seems that there may be
`personal -- but there is personal jurisdiction over Metrics if
`their representative was served as required, and they were
`served according to the record, and that under the New Jersey
`court rules that's good service, isn't it?
`MR. GAUDET: Your Honor, I would like to address
`that, that's a purely legal point, and respectfully that's
`actually not the law. The New Jersey courts say that that --
`THE COURT: Wait. An out of state corporate
`representative --
`MR. GAUDET: Correct.
`THE COURT: -- who names a representative in New
`Jersey for service of process and that representative is
`served is subject to the Court's jurisdiction. That's why
`that pattern is set up, isn't it?
`MR. GAUDET: Your Honor, respectfully, it's not. The
`cases actually say that is sufficient to satisfy Rule 4, which
`means that you have effected service, but it is not sufficient
`to satisfy Daimler and demonstrate there's actual general
`jurisdiction over the entities. And in part Daimler has
`changed the law somewhat on that, but the cases that they cite
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 7 of 119
`
`

`

`8
`
`that suggest that gets you personal jurisdiction have nothing
`to do with due process. Those cases are talking about
`satisfying Rule 4 and Rule 4 alone. And if I might --
`THE COURT: Isn't Metrics present in the state
`through its representative?
`MR. GAUDET: Not for purposes of general
`jurisdiction, your Honor. Presence is no longer the test.
`Metrics has an employee. Metrics has a registered agent. But
`we have to have a registered agent because we're registered to
`do business and we have to register to do business to do the
`bare minimum, to do any business in New Jersey. And what
`Daimler says very clearly and very specifically is even a
`continuous systematic substantial connection to the forum
`state is not good enough for general jurisdiction. Would be
`good enough for specific jurisdiction but there's no
`allegation of specific jurisdiction here.
`And so the fact that we have an agent, and the agent
`was just served, there's no unconditional waiver of anything,
`all that reflects is that we've complied with the statute that
`you have to comply with to conduct the bare minimum of
`business. And there actually is a New Jersey federal case
`that says specifically service on an agent does not confer
`jurisdiction. And that's -- your Honor, we cited that case in
`our brief and that cite, your Honor, is, I'll give you that,
`Atkinson Mullen vs. New York Apple Tours, it was decided in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 8 of 119
`
`

`

`9
`
`1998, and it's perfectly consistent with the line of cases
`that go exactly to that point. The cases they cite in their
`brief are simply talking about -- and in fact I can present to
`the Court, after we read their sur-reply, there were three
`other cases where the New Jersey courts say very specifically
`satisfying the rule under New Jersey for service is not the
`same thing as satisfying the Fourteenth Amendment.
`And let me give you those cites as well, your Honor.
`Those cites are the CitiBank vs. Estate of Simpson, 290 N.J.
`Super 519 or 676 A.2d 172; the Krishanti vs. Rajaratnan case,
`which is 2014 U.S. District LEXIS 131397; and also the
`Nehemiah vs. Athletics Congress of USA case, which is 765 F.2d
`42, all of them say exactly the same thing, which is if you
`serve an agent and you comply with the New Jersey statute all
`that means is you've satisfied Rule 4 that that -- so the case
`can start. That does not mean that there is process that has
`been served sufficiently under the Fourteenth Amendment.
`And the last point I want to make about this is Daimler
`is very clear that the California statute purported to extend
`jurisdiction as far as you conceivably could extend it, and it
`said for general jurisdiction there are two paradigmatic cases
`where you can have jurisdiction over a non-U.S. or sister
`state corporation, that's place of incorporation and place of
`headquarters, it didn't say or any of the probably dozens of
`other states that you're registered to do the bare minimum
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 9 of 119
`
`

`

`10
`
`amount of service are therefore required to have a registered
`agent. That would in effect turn Daimler into largely
`irrelevance and footnote because, again, registration and
`having an agent simply demonstrates the absolute bare minimum,
`which wouldn't be enough even under the old regime and
`certainly isn't enough under the notion of uniqueness, of a
`unique connection to the forum.
`THE COURT: Okay. Fine. Then why don't we go ahead
`with my plan, that we would have a period of discovery so that
`the Daimler test can be applied to the matters and the
`plaintiff will have an opportunity to fill things out.
`Yes, Mr. Hasford?
`MR. HASFORD: Thank you, your Honor.
`If I may, I'd like to address a few of the
`misstatements that counsel just made.
`The case that he cites -- first off, the case he cited,
`the Atkinson case, does not in fact say what he says it says.
`The case says, "Indeed, sister courts have held that
`registrations to do business within the state without more
`does not suffice to satisfy the criteria to the exercise of
`general jurisdiction." It does not in fact say that
`unconditional acceptance of process is not sufficient.
`That point actually was made by this court, your Honor,
`in the Signs by Tomorrow by GW Engle case in 2006, again in
`that case it says, and I quote, New Jersey Court Rule 4:4-4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 10 of 119
`
`

`

`11
`
`governs service of process in New Jersey state courts. In
`particular New Jersey Court Rule 4-4(a)(6) provides that
`personal jurisdiction can be obtained over a defendant
`corporation by serving a copy of the summons and complaint in
`the manner prescribed by Paragraph (a)(1) of this ruling. It
`goes on to say that can be accepted by the authorized agent.
`The case also states that this applies in federal court
`through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. So we strongly
`disagree with his characterization of these cases, your Honor.
`The other thing is the Daimler and Goodyear paradigm
`that he laid out is an independent pathway to general
`jurisdiction, we allege here that there is both general and
`specific jurisdiction. But this independent pathway, what
`we're pointing to here is that they accepted service of
`process and by the unconditional acceptance of service through
`their registered state agent, that is in fact another pathway
`to jurisdiction and that satisfies jurisdiction in this case.
`I'm happy to proceed, but --
`THE COURT: What about the CitiBank, Krishanti, and
`Nehemiah cases?
`MR. HASFORD: Okay. They did not cite the CitiBank
`case in their briefing, your Honor. We address the Krishanti
`case in our brief -- and I can point that out, it was in our
`sur-reply. And I would point your Honor to Pages 3 through 4
`of our sur-reply. In the Krishanti case none of the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 11 of 119
`
`

`

`12
`
`defendants was in fact registered to do business in New Jersey
`and service was in fact not effectuated upon a registered
`agent in New Jersey. And in fact in Krishanti the Court
`explicitly rejected the argument that various activities years
`in the past cannot establish general jurisdiction, and that's
`an argument the defendants are trying to make sure. So the
`Krishanti case really doesn't apply and in fact it cuts
`against them.
`And I apologize, I didn't catch that third case that
`your Honor mentioned.
`THE COURT: Nehemiah.
`MR. HASFORD: I'm not certain if they cited that case
`in their briefing either, your Honor.
`The point here is that unconditional acceptance by the
`registered state agent establishes consent to personal
`jurisdiction as a matter of law. And Daimler and Goodyear
`simply don't address the issue of consent, they didn't need to
`because the Supreme Court addressed that way back in the day
`in Pennsylvania Fire Insurance. It's a case that in some
`senses is square on with this one in that you had out of state
`corporations, you had a Colorado entity and you had an Arizona
`entity and it dealt with a fire that happened in Colorado and
`an insurance policy directed to that Colorado building. And
`suit was brought in Missouri because the defendant was
`registered to do business in the State of Missouri and the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 12 of 119
`
`

`

`13
`
`defendant unconditionally accepted service of process through
`their Missouri state agent. And the Supreme Court held that
`that satisfied the constitutional retirements of due process.
`That case has not been modified. It's not been reversed.
`It's not been vacated. It's not been abrogated. It's not
`been overturned in any way by Daimler or Goodyear or any other
`case, your Honor.
`MR. GAUDET: Your Honor, just a handful of points in
`rebuttal, if I may.
`I will start at the end. The case he just cited was
`decided in 1917 by the Supreme Court. The Neirbo case was
`then decided in 1939, and that was a case they cited in their
`brief, that was six years before International Shoe --
`THE COURT: Slow down, please. Everyone will have
`plenty of time.
`MR. GAUDET: Thank you. Thank you. I'll start over.
`The Pennsylvania Fire case that he cited was a 1917
`Supreme Court case. There was then another decision about,
`oh, 22 years later, the Neirbo case, which was just looking at
`the question of if federal courts have authorization based on
`the Congressional statute did service by an agent satisfy the
`Congressional statute. Then six years later in 1945
`International Shoe was decided and this whole notion of
`minimum contact came into the law. Seven years after that the
`Supreme Court decided the Perkins case, this is Perkins vs.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 13 of 119
`
`

`

`14
`
`Benguet, B-E-N-G-U-E-T, Consolidated at 342 U.S. 437, and they
`said "appointment of agent per a state requirement is not
`conclusive of personal jurisdiction." So the notion that
`Pennsylvania Fire survives not only International Shoe but
`then comes forward under Daimler is not justified by the
`cases.
`
`Two other points very quickly.
`THE COURT: Well, appointment of a representative
`isn't what we're talking about here, we're talking about
`service on a representative of the parties. And so why isn't
`that consent by the party to be served and appear in that
`court?
`
`MR. GAUDET: Your Honor, I believe that that case
`treats the two as the same as the agent has been served. But
`the notion of unconditional waiver of service and all of that,
`all that happened here is we were served, is that a server
`showed up and served a registered agent. And when you look at
`the Daimler analysis, it is so -- it is so focused on the
`notion of uniqueness and being at home, that's something that
`necessarily follows. In other words, it's once you appoint an
`agent, then anybody can go serve that agent. There's
`nothing -- there are no more facts. We don't do anything. We
`don't make ourselves any more central, any more at home. So
`the fact that they went to that agent and served it, doesn't
`add anything more to the analysis.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 14 of 119
`
`

`

`15
`
`And I also -- what counsel described as a
`mischaracterization, I want to go back there for a second. I
`think the case said what I said, which is that appointment of
`a -- complying with the statute isn't by itself enough. But I
`also want to eliminate any doubt about what the cases that I
`cited said given that remark. The -- this is CitiBank vs.
`Estate of Simpson --
`MR. HASFORD: And we're going to object, your Honor,
`they didn't include this in their brief and they didn't
`provide us with a copy of these slides before this hearing.
`THE COURT: All right. The objection is sustained.
`You can't show up after all this briefing with new case law
`and expect me to make sense of it, can you?
`MR. GAUDET: Your Honor --
`THE COURT: Or were they cited? Has it been
`overlooked?
`MR. GAUDET: These -- CitiBank and Nehemiah, I don't
`believe were cited. We were putting this --
`THE COURT: Those are the two cases on your slides.
`MR. GAUDET: Yes.
`THE COURT: So the objection is sustained.
`MR. GAUDET: Okay. Your Honor, as we --
`THE COURT: Is there a conspiracy to keep the Court
`in the dark as to what the parties' positions are in this
`case? There's been so much briefing and so much scuffling
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 15 of 119
`
`

`

`16
`
`about what the basic facts and what the basic law is, and I
`don't know who's responsible but it's very difficult to figure
`out. I made a chart. I would like to hand out the chart
`because the briefing is so scattered and so unhelpful on the
`relationship of these parties, I've tried to diagram it to the
`best of my ability. It is extremely difficult for me. Maybe
`the attorneys, especially the attorneys for the defense who
`seem to claim your parties are nowhere, can please help me.
`So please pass it out.
`Now, what I asked my law clerk to pass out is a diagram
`and it's a diagram that tries to diagram where the disputes
`are, they are marked with a D, it tries to trace what the
`parties' arguments are with regard to the relationships of the
`various parties. Some of the names are in regular print and,
`as far as I know, they are still existing entities. Some are
`in grayed out gray print, which I believe are no longer in
`existence by that name.
`MR. GAUDET: Your Honor?
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. GAUDET: And I -- in an effort, as I was going
`back through the briefs as well to be able to see -- that the
`common names make this very confusing, your Honor, we
`absolutely agree. We've put together a chart that I think
`gets at these same relationships but it comes directly -- it's
`a demonstrative that comes directly from the Cross
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 16 of 119
`
`

`

`17
`
`declarations that are already in the record. If I could show
`you the chart that we have done, it might help to bring
`clarity to the facts. But again, if you'd rather us work from
`this chart, we'll certainly do that, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Well, in fairness, you've not seen this
`chart, neither side has before this morning, it didn't exist
`before last night. And so whichever chart is more helpful to
`accurately portraying the status of the parties' arguments and
`accurately portraying what the relationships are of the
`parties, that would be helpful. If there's something
`inaccurate on my chart, then please let me know as the morning
`goes by and I'll be glad to correct it. I have my own
`annotated versions of the chart that reminds me of where all
`these things come from in the record.
`MR. GAUDET: Your Honor, if I might propose, I'll
`work from the chart that we've prepared. And we've got --
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. GAUDET: -- its copies in a larger deck. And we
`certainly don't want to bring forward something that an
`objection has been sustained to, but I can bring up a copy of
`the deck and we can work from this or I can work from the
`ELMO, whatever would be -- let me work from the ELMO for the
`time being.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. GAUDET: All of these facts are taken from the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 17 of 119
`
`

`

`18
`
`two Cross declarations that are in the record.
`On the right of the chart is simply the corporate
`organization of the defendants that have something to do with
`this ANDA application. That is to say the parent company, the
`three companies in red are the three defendants, three named
`defendants that have been sued. Mayne Pharma Group Limited is
`the parent company. Above that Halcygen Pharmaceuticals was
`the prior name but it changed its name, but Mayne Pharma is
`the parent. So everything on the right is us. Everything on
`the left we are completely unrelated to.
`So working down to Mayne Pharma, Mayne Pharma's
`wholly-owned subsidiary, Metrics, Inc., which is a North
`Carolina corporation registered -- incorporated in North
`Carolina and headquartered in North Carolina, is also a named
`defendant.
`Then working -- that company has two d/b/a
`registrations.
`THE COURT: All right. Just a moment.
`MR. GAUDET: Yes.
`THE COURT: So Mayne Pharma Group -- Mayne Pharma
`Group you're saying is a North Carolina corporation and
`headquartered in North Carolina?
`MR. GAUDET: I'm sorry, your Honor. I went too
`
`quickly.
`No, your Honor, the top red -- so the second from the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 18 of 119
`
`

`

`19
`
`top, Mayne Pharma limited, is an Australian corporation
`headquartered in Australia. It has several -- it has a lot of
`other subsidiaries that aren't up here. But it's an
`Australian company. It's got an Australian -- an ABN, an
`Australian business number, I think is the acronym. It is
`based in Australia. Its U.S. subsidiaries, or some of them,
`are immediately below. Metrics, Inc., is one of its U.S.
`subsidiaries, that's the entity that counsel suggested was the
`one crucial entity, that's wholly-owned by Mayne Pharma Group
`Limited, it's a North Carolina corporation headquartered in
`North Carolina. It has at least two d/b/a's, Coastal
`Pharmaceuticals and Mayne Pharma, they're not themselves legal
`entities but they are registered in some states so that
`Metrics, Inc., can do business in those states under those
`d/b/a's. Note New Jersey is not one of those states.
`To kind of fill out the rest of this side of the chart,
`Libertas to the right there is another U.S. based company,
`it's based in Georgia, that is wholly-owned by Mayne Pharma.
`Georgia corporation again not headquartered -- headquartered
`in Georgia, incorporated in Georgia. Those two companies are
`sometimes referred to internally as Mayne Pharma USA because
`it's the U.S. operations of Mayne Pharma. Okay? That's us.
`Now, none of those entities -- and there's the point
`about whether or not having an agent is sufficient, and again
`we think the case law is what it is, but none of those
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 19 of 119
`
`

`

`20
`
`entities other than that have any kind of connection.
`Now, over on the left there's the question -- to your
`part, your Honor, it is confusing, and I apologize for the
`confusion.
`THE COURT: Where did Mayne Pharma USA go to?
`MR. GAUDET: Okay. So Mayne Pharma USA, Inc., there,
`that's -- so -- this is the confusion. There are two
`completely unrelated entities that sound a whole lot alike.
`There's Mayne Pharma USA as a d/b/a, which is not up on the
`chart but it's a d/b/a of Metrics, Inc., and Libertas, Inc.,
`just like the other d/b/a's. Well, I say it's a d/b/a, it's
`sometimes an internal reference that people use around the
`company, it's not registered as a d/b/a but it's not named
`either.
`
`Over on the left, this is where the confusion comes in,
`Mayne Pharma Limited, an Australian company sold us trademarks
`back in 2009, so that went up to the parent company Halcygen,
`which then caused Mayne Pharma to change its name. Okay? So
`now hence the confusion in names. Mayne Pharma changed its
`name to Hospira Australia. Okay? All the way down at the
`bottom there, that entity in green, Mayne Pharma USA, Inc.,
`okay, that is the fourth named defendant. What we know is
`that entity once was related to Mayne Pharma Limited, in other
`words, they kept on using the trademarks for some reason, they
`have an address in New Jersey it appears. We never had
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 20 of 119
`
`

`

`21
`
`anything to do with them. We don't know if they're still
`active or not active. It's just out there. But there is
`nothing other than a similar name and it is a similar name and
`that is confusing. To suggest any connection between that
`company, even whether it's alive or not, and us and they is
`simply unconnected, we have nothing to do with it other than
`there is a similar name.
`Now, the last piece of this puzzle, and then I want to
`come back to that --
`THE COURT: Well, would you agree -- do you represent
`Mayne Pharma USA, Inc., a New Jersey corporation?
`MR. GAUDET: No, we don't. And that's a great
`question. I mean, why in the world did we enter an
`appearance, why are we filing a motion on their behalf? And
`the answer is this, we've got a d/b/a that sounds a whole lot
`like that. They served the complaint in this case, a specific
`copy of the complaint, they served Mayne Pharma USA, Inc., on
`the CFO of Metrics and the CFO of some of the related
`companies there. The CFO in North Carolina having gotten a
`copy of a complaint made out to the company that sounds a
`whole lot like one of our d/b/a's called his lawyers and said
`in effect what do we do. And so, you know, if it is what you
`said Mayne Pharma USA, Inc., a New Jersey company based in New
`Jersey, then no. But what the complaint says is that on
`information and belief Mayne Pharma USA is a New Jersey
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 21 of 119
`
`

`

`22
`
`company with this address and they served it on Metrics, they
`served it on us. In that scenario where our corporate officer
`of Metrics has been served with a complaint that names an
`entity that looks a whole lot like our d/b/a, what we did was
`file an appearance and then file a motion. Our fear was if we
`had filed something more to try to sort this out -- and I
`completely understand the Court's frustration, frankly, with
`the confusion of this. It only would have gotten worse as we
`kind of lay all this out rather than coming into court and
`explaining it to you or trying to explain it to you, your
`Honor. But we have nothing to do with that entity.
`THE COURT: Well, this Court does have jurisdiction
`if Mayne Pharma USA, Inc., a New Jersey corporation has been
`duly served. Is it your position they haven't been served
`because service was only made on a CFO of an unrelated company
`in North Carolina?
`MR. GAUDET: It's an identity. If they mean by Mayne
`Pharma USA our d/b/a, then, yes, they've been served; no,
`there's not jurisdiction. If they mean Mayne Pharma USA,
`Inc., N.J. Corp., I do not represent them. I'd be speculating
`as to whether or not there is or isn't. But I can't imagine
`that serving that company at an address that isn't theirs
`could possibly affect service. I mean, it wasn't their
`officer. It wasn't as if it had anything to do with them. So
`it would be a simple failure of Rule 4.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 22 of 119
`
`

`

`23
`
`MR. HASFORD: And, if I may, your Honor. They did
`not file a Rule 12(b)(5) motion with respect to service. They
`accepted service of the complaint directed to Mayne Pharma
`USA, Inc., through their CFO. So, your Honor, none of this
`changes the central truism here that Metrics, the ANDA filer,
`unequivocally and unconditionally accepted service of process
`here in New Jersey through their registered New Jersey agent
`and that establishes consent of personal jurisdiction as a
`matter of law, your Honor. And that's the case that I cited
`from New Jersey, the Signs by Tomorrow case. That's also a
`Third Circuit, Livera. The Third Circuit held that by
`accepting service in New Jersey that Livera and Livera
`Corporation consented to personal jurisdiction. It's the
`Neirbo case that counsel mentioned from the Supreme Court.
`It's also Pennsylvania Fire Insurance from the Supreme Court
`that I mentioned. Those cases are good law, they provide an
`independent pathway to jurisdiction.
`I would also add, your Honor, for the record it sounds
`like counsel may have waived privilege with respect to any
`communications with Mr. Cross, and so we may be briefing that
`for your Honor.
`MR. GAUDET: Your Honor, if I may make a suggestion.
`It sounds like at this point the real nub of the dispute here
`is this fairly legal matter of whether or not -- whether or
`not serving an agent is enough to make Metrics, Inc. -- in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`United States District Court
`Camden, New Jersey
`
`Page 23 of 119
`
`

`

`24
`
`light of all this to make Metrics, Inc., subject to
`jurisdiction. And I don't know that there are any facts that
`are being contested that would make any -- one of the things
`about Daimler is it said, you know, even if -- and Daimler
`is -- Daimler is the German company, MBUSA was in California,
`the Court said let's assume MBUSA is subject to general
`jurisdiction, is at home, and let's assume you can impute all
`of its actions up to Daimler AG, that's still

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket