Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :O7—cv-00038-SLR Document 21 Filed O4/30/2007 Page 1 of 3
Youno CoNAwAv STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
tz;iL$I§tti;i?‘ THE BRASDYWINE BUILDING §§;f§€t§i§§"
RICHARD .~\.LE\.`1NE JOEL.—\ WAITE SA.NJA\`BHATNAGAR ADRIA B MARTINELLI
RICHARD A ZAPPA BRENT C. S1-IAEEER ’ DONALD].BO\\'N1AN.]R. MICHAEL W McDEi>.Morr
FREDER1CK\V.lOBST DAN1ELl".]O1·{NSON YNILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 .lEFFRE‘1"l`.CASTELL:\NO TAMMx·L MERCER
R1cHAnoH MotzsE C11-uoD.GnEAE KAR~\H.-\}·1N1ONDC`O\`LE MARIBETHL MISELLA
DA\’1D C. NICBRIDE TIMOTHY JAY HouSEAL P.O. Box 391 KRISTEN $Al{;`g(gRE DEPALMA EDMON L XIOHTON \
SE‘ A .` s J A: . ‘s.‘ ; J , , ~ M. A . AI A D F.'\1‘1 ,5-lARA—\`.*·. wsa
é‘;;;“.1.‘t2‘§§;3#Z°` plrtliziiztéii 1* ‘LM‘”GT°“# DEI-AMI I9899-IMI Mit? ‘ `“ ta;i;at"§ta L
B.Anm‘ M. WILLOIJGHBY C. BARR FLINS (30-,) Q7 I 6600 Enix EDWARDS .-\DA&1\\` Pow
JosYW.1xcEnSoLL NATALIE YVOLF _ * E KENNETH] ENDS SETH} REIBEABERG
ASr1~1or JEaoME K GROSSNJAN ions W. SHAW FAX. (307) ;7l_1-;;3 JAMESJ GALLAGHER C`HER\’1. A SANTANIELLO
ELGESEA DJPRINZJO JAMES 1".l-1l£GHES,1R. ‘ ° " ‘ "' SEAN T. GREECHER (NJ & PA ONLY)
J=i>.:sS L PATTON. Ja Eow1r Ries;. L Tx . A M A .N .... . . . . . D. wx M. JONES M ATET SQ`
\\`fLLS};~1D Jgigsiox x1li:0{REiaLxFiJ.I§1?iIE)R ll/“'w·lOl>NGCONA“'—‘\`* »COM K;REN E. KELLER X1l%l~l.»\EL1’ Sfgeono
Tmornv J. S>i‘:'DER I ROLIN P. BJSSELL .lENNIFERN1.}K1NKUS_ g CHAI? S C STO\;ER
iikftih i*%'€3Z€§§l” ?§3§1%‘§§é€1» www DIAL: 302-5vI—50Is ?§$¥*§?’i2a§%i“‘°"’“‘ itii-Eilttéila
LARRY] TARABICOS M. BLAKE CLEAEY DIRECT F,x_x;; 30]-576-3457 KAREN LAETZ MARGARETB WHITELIAN
R`. A.DL ` ’.J s‘..·D I . W _ Th rt-JY .LENGK · S,.r sixiiiiant St.J§§““’ “ §T1T$EEEQG.§;§“S “’°"“’ ¤SI¤~·¤I@>¤SI»¤¤m lééiisti 1. tmiii ““’° ‘ “
CASSAKDRA F ROBERTS Jonx J. PASCHEITO
RICHARD] A. POWER NORMAN M POWELL SPECIAL CoU>:SEL SENIOR COUNSEL
TERESA A CHEEK ELESA C. ?~ioi>.x1Ar< Joux D. MCLAIJGHLIX. Jn CURTIS] Caovrraen
NE1LL1\lLLLEN\\”ALSH KA1>.E>:L PAScALE
PATRICIA A. W1¤0oSS OF COUNSEL
BRUCE M STARGATY
STUARTB \`OL'? ED\‘~`.·\RD B Nl.-\X‘.‘SELL. Iso
April 30, 2007
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
Honorable Sue L. Robinson
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
Room 6124
Lockbox 31
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Syngenta Bioteclmology, [nc. v. DeKalb Genetics C mp.,
C.A. No. 07-3 8-SLR
Dear Judge Robinson:
We are providing this letter in response to Monsanto/DeKalb’s (referred to as
"Monsanto") letter of April 26, 2007, which submitted to the Court the recent decision of the
Eastern District of Missouri in DeKalb Genetics C mp. v. Syngenta Seeds, [nc., Case No.
4:06CV01191-ERW. Contrary to Monsanto’s representations in its April 26th letter, this
decision supports denying Monsanto’s motion to transfer and proceeding with the above-
captioned action here.
As specifically argued in Syngenta’s opposition to Monsanto’s motion to transfer,
Monsanto brought the Missouri action involving Syngenta’s GA21 corn product without alleging
the necessary facts to assert personal jurisdiction over the four Syngenta defendants who are
plaintiffs in this action. This has now been explicitly COI{fiI'l’Il€([ by the Missouri Court:
The First Amended Complaint simply lists the Defendant-
Movants[’] states of incorporation, and their principal places of
business[;] it does not provide any additional information
regarding contacts with Missouri. Since none of the Defendant-
DB02:59436-11.1 0591551015

Case 1 :O7—cv-00038-SLR Document 21 Filed O4/30/2007 Page 2 of 3
Yourve CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
Honorable Sue L. Robinson
April 30, 2007
Page 2
Movants are Missouri corporations, nor do they have their
principal places of business in Missouri, this information is
insufficient to satisfy Plaintiffs burden of creating a prima facie
case of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff requests that if this Court
finds that personal jurisdiction is lacking, that it be granted leave to
amend their First Amended Complaint, to include sufficient
allegations of personal jurisdiction. Since Plaintiff has requested
leave to amend within the time period allowed under the Case
Management Order, leave to amend is granted. Defendants may
renew their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
following amendment of the pleadings by Plaintiff.
(Monsanto 4/26/2007 Letter, Exhibit A at 12.) (footnote omitted). Based on the
Missouri court’s decision, there can be no reasonable question that Monsanto’s initial complaint
in Missouri against the Plaintiffs in this action was fundamentally flawed. As such, this Court
should not accord "first—filed" status to the Missouri action. See Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lil/v &
Co., 998 F.2d 931, 938 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (stating that a "sound reason" for departing from the
first—filed rule is the "absence of jurisdiction over all necessary or desirable parties"). At the
very least, this Court should defer resolution of Monsanto’s motion to transfer until the personal
jurisdiction issues in Missouri have been finally resolved. Enzo Biochem [nc. v. C cz/gene [nc.,
No. 93-1 10—JIF, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19502, at *6 (D. Del. May 18, 1993) ("At a minimum,
the Hrst-field rule requires this Court to provide the California court an opportunity to make
those initial determinations .... [U]ntil those determinations are made, the Court is persuaded
that this case should be stayed.").
Furthermore, while Monsanto refers to the Missouri action as the "first" action
between the parties, this is simply not accurate. As discussed in Syngenta’s opposition to
Monsanto’s motion to transfer, the Missouri action is actually the third action in which Monsanto
sued Plaintiffs (collectively referred to as "Syngenta") for patent infringement based on
Syngenta’s GA21 corn product. Monsanto brought the first action in this Court and the second
action in the Northern District of Illinois. The Illinois action (involving the Lundquist ’880 and
’863 patents) was transferred to this Court and both were consolidated.
Only after losing its case on summary judgment in this Court did Monsanto
commence the third action in Missouri based on a closely related Lundquist patent, U.S. Patent
No. 5,554,798 ("the Lundquist ’798 patent"). In Missouri, Monsanto raises the same allegedly
infringing activity by Syngenta, the sale of GA21 corn, that was previously at issue in this Court.
Further, the ’798, ’880, and ’863 patents name the same inventors (Ronald Lundquist and David
Walters), disclose essentially the same subject matter, and contain common claim terms that this
Court previously interpreted in the context of the ’880 and ’863 patents. Given this Court’s
understanding of the complex legal and technical issues, it should clearly maintain its jurisdiction
over the GA21 dispute. See Optical Recording Corp. v. Copiro/-EM] Music, [nc., 803 F. Supp.
971, 973-74 (D. Del. 1992) ("The Court’s familiarity with the subject matter of the litigation will
DB02:59436—ll.l 0501551015

Case 1 :O7—cv-00038-SLR Document 21 Filed O4/30/2007 Page 3 of 3
Youno CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
Honorable Sue L. Robinson
April 30, 2007
Page 3
reduce the expenditure of judicial resources in the handling of this matter. This circumstance
alone is sufficient, in the Court’s view, to justify departure from the first—tiled rule.").
Furthermore, that the Missouri court decided not to transfer the other defendants
in Missouri to this Court does not warrant a different result. According to Monsanto’s own
arguments, the plaintiffs in this action are not peripheral parties to the controversy between the
parties, and as of right now, the Missouri court has held that Monsanto’s complaint failed to
allege sufficient facts to establish personal jurisdiction over these parties. The transfer of these
parties to Missouri, the third-filed forum where Monsanto could not have properly brought the
principal suit against them, would be manifestly unfair and contrary to the interests of justice.
Accordingly, the interests of justice strongly support having this Court maintain
its jurisdiction over the GA2l corn patent litigation, and Syngenta respectfully requests that this
Court deny Monsanto’s motion to transfer
Sin frely,
/
Chad S. C. Stover
C SC:cac
cc: David E. Moore, Esquire
Susan Knoll, Esquire
oB02;s94s64r.r 059l55.l0l5