throbber
Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1668
`
`
`Duane Morris LLP
`By: Sandra A. Jeskie
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: 215-979-1395
`Facsimile: 215-689-2586
`jeskie@duanemorris.com
`Attorneys for Defendants Metrics, Inc., Coastal
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mayne Pharma Group
`Limited, and Mayne Pharma (USA), Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-03962-
`JBS-KMW
`
`
`
`MOTION DATE: September 15, 2015
`
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`BAUSCH & LOMB, INC. and BAUSCH &
`LOMB HOLDINGS CORP.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`METRICS, INC., COASTAL
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MAYNE
`PHARMA GROUP LIMITED, and MAYNE
`PHARMA (USA), INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`:::::::::::
`
`::
`
`:
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (D.I. 1)
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 66
`
`SENJU EXHIBIT 2003
`METRICS v. SENJU
`IPR2014-01043
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 1669
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Background ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`III. Argument ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ misstate the Supreme Court’s holdings in Goodyear
`and Daimler ........................................................................................... 8
`
`Defendants minimum contacts with the state of New Jersey will
`not satisfy the standard for personal jurisdiction set forth in
`Daimler and Goodyear ........................................................................ 10
`
`C. Neither “Mayne Pharma Limited” nor “Mayne Pharma (USA),
`Inc.” are related entities of the Defendants and any jurisdiction-
`conferring actions of either entity cannot be imputed to
`Defendants ........................................................................................... 13
`
`D. Defendants have not consented to jurisdiction as a result of
`previous litigation ................................................................................ 15
`
`E.
`
`This Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional
`discovery ............................................................................................. 16
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 1670
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Arch v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.,
`984 F.Supp. 830 (E.D. Penn. 1997) .............................................................. 17-18
`
`Atkinson & Mullen Travel, Inc. v. New York Apple Tours, Inc.,
`48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1377 (D.N.J. 1998) ..................................................................... 10
`
`Carigliano v. Classic Motor Inc., No. 13-4180-SDW-MCA, 2014 WL
`3556393 (D.N.J.,July 17, 2014) ........................................................................ 8-9
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman, 135 S.Ct. 746 (2014) ............................... 2-3,5-10,11-12,16
`
`Flynn v. Hovensa, LLC, No. 3:14-43, 2014 WL 3375238 (W.D. Penn., July
`3, 2014) ............................................................................................................... 16
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown,131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011). 2-3, 5-7, 9-10,12,16
`
`Imo Indus., Inc., v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3rd Cir. 1998) ................................ 17
`
`JWQ Cabinetry, Inc. v. Granada Wood & Cabinets, Inc., et. al.,No. 13-
`4110-FLW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68293 (D.N.J., May 19, 2014) ....... 6, 8-9,11
`
`Krishanti, et. al., v. Rajaratnam, et. al., No. 2:09-cv-05395, 2014 WL
`1669873 (D.N.J., April 28, 2014) ...................................................................... 3,8
`
`(D.N.J., July 11, 2011)……………………………………………………………...17
`
`Lottotron, Inc., v. Athila Station, et. al., No. 10-4318-JLL, 2011 WL 2784570,
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 1671
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 50, herein
`
`“Plaintiffs’ Opposition”) reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the
`
`relationships between the named Defendants and their presence in this jurisdiction.
`
`Plaintiffs compound their factual misunderstanding by applying an incorrect legal
`
`standard for personal jurisdiction. As set forth in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
`
`(D.I. 30, “Defendants’ Motion”), only three of the named Defendants are related,
`
`and only two of those related Defendants are legal entities: (1) Mayne Pharma
`
`Group Limited (“Mayne Pharma Australia”),1 which is an Australian company
`
`whose only involvement in this lawsuit is as the parent entity of Defendant
`
`Metrics, Inc. (“Metrics”); and (2) Metrics itself, which is a North Carolina
`
`company. (D.I. 30 at 10.) Metrics is organized under the laws of North Carolina
`
`with a principal place of business in Greenville, North Carolina. One of the other
`
`two named Defendants, Coastal Pharmaceuticals, is just a DBA tradename of
`
`Metrics and Mayne Pharma Australia. Thus, Metrics is registered to do business in
`
`North Carolina and elsewhere as Coastal Pharmaceuticals. (Id.) The DBA entity,
`
`Coastal Pharmaceuticals, is not a legal entity at all, and cannot be subject to
`
`
`1 In its motion to dismiss, Defendants referred to Mayne Pharma Group Limited
`as “Mayne Pharma.” However, due to Plaintiffs’ introduction of other unrelated
`entities sharing the name “Mayne Pharma” discussed in Plaintiffs’ Opposition,
`Defendants will refer to Mayne Pharma Group Limited as “Mayne Pharma
`Australia” in this Reply.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 1672
`
`
`jurisdiction apart from the jurisdictional analysis for the underlying legal entity
`
`(Metrics). And, as out-of-state corporations without the sort of “continuous and
`
`systematic” contacts with the State of New Jersey necessary to support a finding of
`
`personal jurisdiction, both Metrics and Mayne Pharma Australia should be
`
`dismissed from this case.
`
`Further, Plaintiffs have named a fourth entity, Mayne Pharma (USA), Inc.
`
`(“MP USA, Inc.”), as a Defendant in this lawsuit, even though MP USA, Inc. has
`
`no relation to Mayne Pharma Australia, to Metrics, or to Mayne Pharma USA
`
`(which is another DBA tradename of Defendant Metrics). (D.I. 30 at 10.)
`
`Plaintiffs incorrectly attribute the actions of MP USA, Inc. to “Mayne Pharma
`
`USA” (which, again, is a DBA tradename of Defendant Metrics). (D.I. 50 at 5.)
`
`Plaintiffs repeatedly assert that “Metrics and Mayne Pharma USA are the same
`
`corporate entity” (D.I. 50, FN2.) While that assertion is correct, it does not change
`
`the simple fact that MP USA, Inc. is unrelated to either Metrics or to Metrics’
`
`DBAs “Mayne Pharma” and “Mayne Pharma USA.” Put simply, MP USA, Inc.
`
`and the “Mayne Pharma” and “Mayne Pharma USA” tradenames for Defendants
`
`Mayne Pharma Australia and Metrics share nothing more than a similar name.
`
`Plaintiffs then apply a legal standard which disregards the influence of the
`
`Supreme Court’s recent decisions in both Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A.
`
`v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011)(“Goodyear”) and Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 1673
`
`
`Ct. 746 (2014) (“Daimler”). This Court has expressly acknowledged that the
`
`Supreme Court’s Goodyear and Daimler decisions refined the standard for finding
`
`personal jurisdiction over out-of-state entities to require the sort of “continuous and
`
`systematic” contacts which render the out-of-state entity “at home” in the forum
`
`State. JWQ Cabinetry, Inc. v. Granada Wood & Cabinets, Inc., et. al., No. 13-
`
`4110-FLW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68293, at *6 (D.N.J., May 19, 2014).
`
`Nonetheless, Plaintiffs ask this Court to limit the Supreme Court’s recent holdings
`
`to only out-of-state entities who are not registered to do business in the state or to
`
`those entities who have previously consented to jurisdiction in the state. This
`
`Court has so far refused to apply these cases so narrowly, and Plaintiffs fail to
`
`provide any convincing reason why these recent Supreme Court holdings should
`
`not be applicable to the case at hand.
`
`As set forth in Defendants’ Motion, none of the named Defendants can be
`
`considered “at home” in the State of New Jersey, and, therefore lack the sufficient
`
`“minimum contacts” with New Jersey necessary to support personal jurisdiction.
`
`For at least this reason, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant its
`
`Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, and deny Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional
`
`discovery.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 1674
`
`
`II. Background
`This action arises out of Metrics’ (d/b/a Coastal Pharmaceuticals
`
`(“Coastal”)) filing of an ANDA under Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug
`
`and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 355 (j), seeking approval to market a generic
`
`version of Prolensa® (bromfenac ophthalmic solution 0.07%). As explained in
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the instant Complaint is one of three lawsuits filed
`
`by Plaintiffs naming the same Defendants and alleging infringement of the same
`
`patents by the filing of Metrics’ ANDA. (D.I. 30 at 5-6.) This Complaint was filed
`
`before receipt of Metrics’ Notice Letter, while the Parties were still in the midst of
`
`business discussions. Presumably, Plaintiffs elected to file this complaint in the
`
`District of New Jersey because there is already pending litigation against another
`
`generic pharmaceutical company seeking to market a generic version of
`
`Prolensa®. However convenient for Plaintiffs, the District of New Jersey has
`
`neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction over any of the named
`
`Defendants. For this reason, Defendants respectfully request that that this Court
`
`dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint and further deny Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional
`
`discovery.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 1675
`
`
`III. Argument
`A.
`Plaintiffs misstate the Supreme Court’s holdings in Goodyear and
`Daimler
`
`In support of their position, Plaintiffs urge this Court to rely on a series of
`
`pre-Goodyear and pre-Daimler cases. This asserted legal support is particularly
`
`suspect, given that this Court has expressly recognized that “the Supreme Court
`
`refined the standard for finding general jurisdiction in Daimler . . . [such that]
`
`general jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to ‘hear any and all claims’ against an
`
`out-of-state entity or person when its ‘affiliations with the State are so continuous
`
`and systematic as to render [it] at home in the forum state.’” JWQ Cabinetry, Inc.
`
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68293, at *6 (citing Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 751); see also,
`
`Krishanti, et. al., v. Rajaratnam, et. al., No. 2:09-cv-05395, 2014 WL 1669873, at
`
`*6 (D.N.J., April 28, 2014); Corigliano v. Classic Motor Inc., et. al, No. 13-4180,
`
`2014 WL 3556393 at * 2 (D.N.J., July 17, 2014). Indeed, this Court has not only
`
`recognized that the Supreme Court “refined the standard” for finding personal
`
`jurisdiction in Daimler, but has further noted that, since Daimler, “courts have
`
`noted that general jurisdiction extends beyond an entity’s state of incorporation and
`
`principal place of business only in the exceptional case where its contacts with
`
`another forum are so substantial as to render it “at home” in that state.” JWQ
`
`Cabinetry, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68293, at *8.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 1676
`
`
`Nevertheless, Plaintiffs would ask this Court to limit the holdings in both
`
`Goodyear and Daimler to “foreign corporations that had not registered to do
`
`business or otherwise consented to suit in the forum state,” or “foreign
`
`corporation[s] that apparently [have] no contacts with the forum.” (D.I. 50 at 6.)
`
`This Court has so far declined to limit the holdings in Goodyear and Daimler as
`
`Plaintiffs propose, and Plaintiffs provide no reason why the Court should so limit
`
`the holdings in this particular case. See, e.g., Carigliano, 2014 WL 3556393 at * 6
`
`(relying, in part, on Daimler, holding that defendant, a California corporation did
`
`not possess the requisite systematic nor continuous contacts with New Jersey to
`
`allow for the exercise of personal jurisdiction); JWQ Cabinetry, Inc., 2014 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 68293, at *9 (holding Court lacked jurisdiction over California
`
`defendant because the business activities at issue “simply [did] not meet
`
`[Daimler]’s standard of an exceptional case.”). For this reason, and in light of this
`
`Court’s holdings since Daimler, Defendants reassert that, in view of the Supreme
`
`Court’s recent rulings, the appropriate inquiry with respect to personal jurisdiction
`
`is whether the Defendants contacts with the state of New Jersey are so “continuous
`
`and systematic” as to render them essentially “at home” in the state. Applying this
`
`standard to the facts of this case, Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 1677
`
`
`B. Defendants’ minimum contacts with the state of New Jersey will
`not satisfy the standard for personal jurisdiction set forth in
`Daimler and Goodyear
`
`Defendants have no need to “downplay their presence in New Jersey”
`
`because they simply do not have a presence in New Jersey that would amount to
`
`the level of “continuous and systematic” contacts with New Jersey contemplated
`
`by both the Daimler and Goodyear decisions. Plaintiffs repeatedly assert that
`
`Defendants have somehow consented to jurisdiction by virtue of registering to do
`
`business in the state of New Jersey, and appointing an agent to accept service.
`
`(D.I. 50 at 4-7.) Defendant Metrics is registered to do business in New Jersey;
`
`however, it was established even before Daimler and Goodyear that simply having
`
`a license to do business in New Jersey is not “in and of itself sufficient to establish
`
`continuous and substantial contacts.” Atkinson & Mullen Travel, Inc. v. New York
`
`Apple Tours, Inc., 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1377, 1379 (D.N.J. 1998). Indeed, to “approve
`
`the exercise of general jurisdiction in every State in which a corporation ‘engages
`
`in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business,’” would be
`
`‘unacceptably grasping.’” Daimler 134 S.Ct. at 761 (2014). Plaintiffs further
`
`assert that Defendants have consented to jurisdiction by appointing a registered
`
`agent to receive service. Again, this position is contrary to the understanding
`
`expressed by this Court that, since Daimler, courts have noted that general
`
`jurisdiction rarely extends “beyond an entity’s state of incorporation and principal
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 1678
`
`
`place of business” except where “its contacts with another forum are so substantial
`
`as to render it ‘at home’ in that state.” JWQ Cabinetry, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 68293, at *8.
`
`For this same reason, Mayne Pharma Australia cannot be subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in New Jersey simply because it has “engaged in the business of
`
`research, development, manufacture, and sale of pharmaceutical products
`
`throughout the world.” (D.I. 50, 4.) First, nothing about this general statement
`
`demonstrates that Mayne Pharma Australia has engaged in such activities in New
`
`Jersey, let alone engaged in such activities in New Jersey to the extent that Mayne
`
`Pharma Australia should be considered “at home” in New Jersey. Further, as set
`
`forth in Defendants’ Motion, Mayne Pharma Australia has not made any direct
`
`sales of products to New Jersey. (D.I. 30 at 11.) Sales by Metrics, a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Mayne Pharma Australia, to New Jersey represented only 4%
`
`of Metrics’ overall U.S. product and services sales for the most recent financial
`
`year, ending June 30, 2014. (D.I. 30, citing Decl. of S. Cross. at ¶ 15.) It is now
`
`well established that “[a] corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be
`
`deemed at home in all of them … [o]therwise, ‘at home’ would be synonymous
`
`with ‘doing business’[.]” Daimler, 134 S.Ct. at 762, FN20. Indeed, as a result of
`
`the “at home” requirement, “only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will
`
`render a defendant amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there.” JWQ Cabinetry,
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 1679
`
`
`Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68293, at *9 (citing Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 760).
`
`While this small volume of yearly sales may suggest that Metrics is “doing
`
`business” in New Jersey, it is a far cry from the sort of “continuous and
`
`systematic” relationship necessary to render Metrics “at home” in New Jersey.
`
`Daimler AG, 134 S.Ct. at 761 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires
`
`Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011)).
`
`In a final attempt to link any of these Defendants to New Jersey, Plaintiffs
`
`assert that “the manufacturer of Defendants’ active pharmaceutical ingredient in
`
`their generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution ANDA product at issue in this case is
`
`Johnson Matthey, which is based in West Deptford, N.J.” (D.I. 50 at 11.) That
`
`non-party Johnson Matthey, Inc. (“JM”) has a New Jersey place of business is
`
`inapt. Although supplied by JM, the bromfenac hydrochloride used in Defendants’
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic ANDA product at issue in this case was not manufactured
`
`or shipped from JM’s New Jersey facility. (Cross Dec’l. at ¶ 6.) Rather, it was
`
`manufactured in and shipped from Massachusetts. Id..
`
`For at least the reasons stated above, Defendants lack a “continuous and
`
`systematic” relationship with New Jersey, and, for this reason, Defendants’ motion
`
`to dismiss should be granted.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 1680
`
`
`C. Neither “Mayne Pharma Limited” nor “Mayne Pharma (USA),
`Inc.” are related entities of the Defendants and any jurisdiction-
`conferring actions of either entity cannot be imputed to
`Defendants
`
`As explained in Defendants’ Motion, “Mayne Pharma USA” (which is a
`
`DBA of Metrics) and Mayne Pharma (USA), Inc. (“MP USA, Inc.”) are neither the
`
`same company nor even related companies. (D.I. 30 at 10.) Despite the similar
`
`names, these two businesses are completely unrelated, having absolutely no
`
`involvement with each other. The origin of the DBA “Mayne Pharma USA” (i.e.,
`
`one of the DBAs of Metrics) is that Mayne Pharma Australia—the parent company
`
`of Metrics—is an Australian company with portions of its operations in the United
`
`States. (Cross Dec’l, at ¶¶ 7-8.) For this reason, Mayne Pharma Australia will
`
`sometimes refer to its US operations as “Mayne Pharma USA.” Id.. Likewise,
`
`Metrics is registered in certain states in the United States (excluding New Jersey)
`
`to do business as Mayne Pharma.2 (Cross Dec’l at ¶8; Exs. 2-10.) But “Mayne
`
`Pharma USA” is not a separate legal entity from Metrics. And, MP USA, Inc. –
`
`which is the named defendant in this lawsuit – is a completely different legal entity
`
`
`2 Defendants note the use of “Mayne Pharma USA” in paragraph 10 of the
`Declaration of Stefan Cross in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the
`Complaint. As explained, Mayne Pharma interchangeably refers to its US
`operations as Mayne Pharma USA and Mayne Pharma. The inclusion of “USA” is
`informal, and is meant only to describe Mayne Pharma’s US operations.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 1681
`
`
`than either (i) Metrics or (ii) Metrics’ DBA “Mayne Pharma USA.” (Cross Dec’l.,
`
`at ¶ 8.)
`
`Similarly, “Mayne Pharma Limited” is not the same entity as Mayne Pharma
`
`Australia. Although the two entities share a history, they have no current
`
`relationship to each other. (Cross Dec’l., at ¶ 9.) Hospira Australia Pty Ltd
`
`(formerly known as Mayne Pharma Limited) sold a company called Mayne
`
`Pharma International Pty Ltd (formerly FH Faulding and Co. Limited) to Halcygen
`
`Pharmaceuticals Limited on September 30, 2009, and at that time it also sold
`
`certain Mayne Pharma trademarks. (Cross Dec’l, at ¶ 10.) Following the
`
`acquisition, Halcygen Pharmaceuticals Limited (as the new owner of the Mayne
`
`Pharma brand) changed its name to Mayne Pharma Group Limited. ( Cross Dec’l,
`
`at ¶11.) Mayne Pharma Limited still exists but is now called Hospira Australia Pty
`
`Ltd. ( Cross Dec’l., at ¶ 9.) For this reason, any alleged admission regarding
`
`contacts between Mayne Pharma Limited and MP USA, Inc. with Mayne Pharma
`
`Australia or Metrics is irrelevant because, as discussed above, MP USA, Inc. is in
`
`no way related to any of the named defendants, and Mayne Pharma Limited has no
`
`relation to Mayne Pharma Australia. (Id.).
`
`Plaintiffs’ assertion that “Mayne Pharma previously identified Mayne
`
`Pharma USA and used its Paramus, NJ address for professional licensure as a
`
`pharmaceutical manufacturer,” is also misplaced. (D.I. 50 at 10, Exs. 23 and 24.)
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 1682
`
`
`It is clear from the face of these licenses that the applicants are Mayne Pharma
`
`Limited and Mayne Pharma Pty Ltd. (Id.), neither of which are defendants in this
`
`case and neither of which is Defendant Mayne Pharma Australia or Mayne Pharma
`
`International Pty Ltd. The pharmaceutical manufacturer license (D.I. 50, Ex. 24)
`
`relied on by Plaintiffs first issued to Mayne Pharma Pty. Ltd. on October 17, 2002
`
`and expired in 2005.3 Thus, this license was issued and expired prior to Mayne
`
`Pharma Australia’s acquisition of Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd. (which is
`
`not even the holder of the licenses) and has no bearing on the jurisdictional issues
`
`in this case.
`
`D. Defendants have not consented to jurisdiction as a result of
`previous litigation
`
`Defendants have not “repeatedly invoked” the jurisdiction of this Court as
`
`Plaintiffs contend. (D.I. 50 at 7-8.) As a practical matter, several of the cases cited
`
`by Plaintiff involve actions by Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd. before it was
`
`acquired by Mayne Pharma Australia. (D.I. 50, Ex 11-17.) In addition, as
`
`previously explained, neither Mayne Pharma Limited nor MP USA, Inc. have any
`
`
`3 Defendants note that, on its face, the license is for Mayne Pharma Pty Ltd., bears
`an expiration date of 12/31/2005, and the “Status” of the license is listed as “Failed
`to Renew.” Although Defendants lack specific information regarding the licensing
`activities of these entities at the time the license was active, Defendants note that
`the expiration date for this license is approximately four years prior to Mayne
`Pharma Australia’s acquisition of Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 1683
`
`
`relationship to Defendant Mayne Pharma Australia; therefore, the actions of these
`
`entities are irrelevant.
`
`Similarly, Plaintiffs rely on the actions of non-party Mayne Pharma
`
`International Pty. Ltd. after its acquisition by Mayne Pharma Australia. While it
`
`appears that this Court has not had the opportunity to consider this point post
`
`Daimler and Goodyear, at least one court in this circuit has held that the
`
`“interrelationship” between Defendants cannot be a basis for jurisdiction; rather,
`
`each individual defendant cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction without itself
`
`being essentially “at home” in the forum. Flynn v. Hovensa, LLC, No. 3:14-43,
`
`2014 WL 3375238, at *5 (W.D. Pa. July 3, 2014)(citing Daimler 134 S.Ct. at 751-
`
`752; Goodyear, 131 S.Ct. at 2857). Therefore, even if this Court were to find that
`
`Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. had conceded to its jurisdiction by
`
`participating in litigation in the forum, this jurisdiction is not necessary imputed to
`
`its parent company, Mayne Pharma Australia (or any of its subsidiaries) absent a
`
`demonstration that each individual defendant can be considered “at home” in the
`
`forum. Id.
`
`E.
`
`This Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional
`discovery
`
`Plaintiffs bear the burden to come forth with sufficient facts to demonstrate,
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence, that jurisdiction is proper. Imo Indus., Inc., v.
`
`Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254, 257 (3rd Cir. 1998). Where, as here, Plaintiffs have
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 1684
`
`
`failed to meet their burden of making out a threshold prima facie case of personal
`
`jurisdiction, it is appropriate for the court to deny Plaintiffs’ request for
`
`jurisdictional discovery. Arch v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., 984 F. Supp. 830,
`
`841 (E.D. Penn. 1997) (citing Rose v. Granite City Police Dep’t, 813 F.Supp. 319,
`
`321 (E.D. Pa. 1993); see also Lottotron, Inc., v. Athila Station, et. al., No. 10-4318,
`
`2011 WL 2784570, at * 2 (D.N.J., July 11, 2011,)(refusing to allow jurisdictional
`
`discovery where plaintiff failed to put sufficient evidence in the record to support
`
`personal jurisdiction.”). Since Plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case of
`
`personal jurisdiction, they have instead asked this Court to “allow limited
`
`discovery in hopes that [they] might uncover some evidence supporting
`
`jurisdiction.” Arch, 984 F.Supp. at 841 (citing Milligan Elec. Co. v. Hudson
`
`Construction Co., 886 F.Supp. 845, 850 (N.D. Fla. 1995)). “Discovery should not
`
`be used in a fishing expedition.” Arch, 984 F.Supp. at 841. Plaintiffs’ failure to
`
`meet their burden of proof should not be awarded with an invitation to engage in
`
`costly discovery on the improbable chance that they might discover some shred of
`
`evidence in support of jurisdiction. Rather, this Court should exercise its
`
`discretion and deny Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery. Id..
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 1685
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For at least the reasons discussed above, Defendants respectfully request that
`
`the Court grant its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (D.I. 1), and deny Plaintiffs’
`
`request for jurisdictional discovery.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Sandra A. Jeskie
`Sandra A. Jeskie
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`(215) 979-1395
`jeskie@duanemorris.com
`
`Matthew C. Gaudet
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Duane Morris LLP
`1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000
`Atlanta, GA 30309-3929
`(404) 253-6900
`MCGaudet@duanemorris.com
`
`Vincent L. Capuano
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Emily N. Winfield
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Duane Morris LLP
`100 High Street, Suite 2400
`Boston, MA 02110-1724
`(857) 488-4200
`VCapuano@duanemorris.com
`ENWinfield@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51 Filed 09/08/14 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 1686
`
`
`Patrick D. McPherson
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-21
`(202) 776-7800
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Metrics, Inc., Coastal
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mayne Pharma Group
`Limited, and Mayne Pharma (USA), Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-1 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1687
`
`Page 20 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-1 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1688
`
`Page 21 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-1 Filed 09/08/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1689
`
`Page 22 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-2 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1690
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-2 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1691
`
`Mayne Pharma Group Limited
`ABN 76 115 832 963
`Roger Corbett (Chair)
`Bruce Mathieson (Non Exec. Director)
`Ian Scholes (Non Exec. Director)
`Ron Best (Non Exec. Director)
`William Phillip Hodges (Non Exec. Director)
`Scott Richards (Exec. Director)
`Mark Cansdale (Co. Secretary)
`
`100%
`
`100%
`
`100%
`
`100%
`
`100%
`
`Metrics Inc.
`North Carolina corporation
`Board: Scott Richards (Chair), Mark
`Cansdale & Stefan Cross
`Officers: Scott Richards (CEO),
`Stefan Cross (President), Wes
`Edwards (CFO), Mark Cansdale
`(VP - Finance & Secretary)
`
`Libertas Pharma Inc.
`Georgia corporation
`Board: Scott (Chair), Mark
`Cansdale & Stefan Cross
`Officers: Scott Richards (CEO),
`Stefan Cross (President), Wes
`Richards (CFO) & Mark Cansdale
`(VP—Finance & Secretary)
`
`Mayne Pharma
`International Pty Ltd
`ABN 88 007 870 984
`Scott Richards (Director)
`Mark Cansdale (Co. Secretary)
`
`100%
`
`100%
`
`Mayne Pharma
`Products Pty Ltd
`ABN 59 140 866 379
`Scott Richards (Director)
`Vince Caretti (Director)
`Mark Cansdale (Director &
`Co. Secretary)
`
`Mayne Pharma UK Ltd
`Co. No 07162518
`Scott Richards (Director)
`Mark Cansdale (Director &
`Co. Secretary)
`
`100%
`
`100%
`
`Tiger Pharmaceuticals LLC
`East Virginia corporation
`(to be incorporated FY15)
`Manager: Metrics Inc.
`Signatory: Stefan Cross
`
`Swan Pharmaceuticals LLC
`Delaware corporation
`(to be incorporated FY15)
`Manager: Libertas Pharma Inc
`Signatory : Stefan Cross
`
`Mayne Pharma Ventures
`Pty Ltd
`ABN 32 168 896 357
`Scott Richards (Director)
`Mark Cansdale (Co. Secretary)
`
`Mayne Pharma
`Ventures LLC
`Delaware corporation
`Manager:
`Signatory: Mark Cansdale
`Officers: Stefan Cross
`(President) & Wes
`Edwards (Secretary)
`
`41.5%
`
`HedgePath Pharmaceuticals
`Inc. (HPPI)
`Delaware corporation
`Stefan Cross (Director)
`
`Page 24 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-3 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1692
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 25 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-3 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1693
`
`Page 26 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-3 Filed 09/08/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1694
`
`Page 27 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-4 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1695
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 28 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-4 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1696
`
`Page 29 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-4 Filed 09/08/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1697
`
`Page 30 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-4 Filed 09/08/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1698
`
`Page 31 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-5 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1699
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 32 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-5 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1700
`
`Page 33 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-5 Filed 09/08/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1701
`
`Page 34 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-5 Filed 09/08/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1702
`
`Page 35 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-6 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1703
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 36 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-6 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1704
`
`Page 37 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-6 Filed 09/08/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1705
`
`Page 38 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-6 Filed 09/08/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1706
`
`Page 39 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-7 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1707
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 40 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW Document 51-7 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1708
`
`Page 41 of 66
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-03962-JBS-KMW

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