Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

A Case 1 :O7—cv—OOO32-***-IVIPT Document 24 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 1 of 3
Yourtc CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
‘ Tae Bmrmiwvtua Bmrnmc
1000 Wasr Smear, 17m FLOOR
Wrtmmcrow, DELAWARE 19801 (302)57l·660O
D1RECTD1AL: 302-571-6743 (302) 57l·l253 mx
omscr FAX: 302-576-3517 p_O_ BOX 391 (800) 253-2234 (DE ONLY)
alundg1‘€[email protected] WILMINGTQNB DELMVARE 19899-039] wWw.y0ungconaway.com
April 9, 2007
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E—FLLlNG
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Wihnington, DE 19801
Re: Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. KVPharmaceu1‘ical
Company and Actavis T otowa, LLC, C.A. No. 07-032 (***;
Dear Magistrate Judge Thynge:
This firm, along with Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, represents Actavis Totowa, LLC
in connection with the above-captioned action. Pursuant to the Court°s Order of March 16, 2007,
we write to update Your Honor on the status of the matter.
By way of background, this is a patent infringement action over a generic substitute for
the painkiller OxyContin®, brought pursuant to certain provisions of the Hatch—Waxman Act.
Notwithstanding Purdue’s deliberate decision to tile this action in Delaware, Purdue now seeks a
transfer of the case to a Multidistrict Litigation proceeding (the "MDL Proceeding") pending in
the Southern District of New York.
Because Purdue’s papers tiled with the Panel responsible for deciding transfer (the "MDL
Panel") failed to indicate whether Actavis opposed transfer of this action to the MDL
Proceeding, Actavis clarified the record by stating its opposition and offering several reasons
why the action should not be transferred. A copy of the letter sent by Actavis to the MDL Panel
on April 6, 2007, is attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew A. Lundgren (N
AAL:smf
cc: Clerk, United States District Court (by hand delivery)
All counsel of record (via e—mail)
DB02;ss9s049.1 0659951001

Case 1 :O7—cv—OOO32-***-IV| PT Document 24 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 2 of 3· · -· ~-
& Y37O AVENUE OFTHE AMERICAS
NEWYDRK. NY IOOIS
Jormrnaw A. Haams TEL; @*21 ’2B·E2¤¤
(eso) 275·Bt15 FAx:(as2)‘r2e-220:
—*A*·*@’—V**L’“”-°°M . 90 STATE House Soumaa —-—
e-¤ARr:=or=eo, cowmacrscur caros -3702 ·e¤·» "" WASHINGTON. D.C. EOOOG
TEL? (850) 275~8rOO ·re1.:(aoa; e¤a·-woo
_ FYAXZ (BSO) Z75·B IO! FAX; (gg;) g{g.47g;
. www.avhlaw.com
April 6, 2007
Clerk ofthe Panel
Judicial Panel on Multidisuict Litigation
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Room G—25 5, North Lobby
Washington, DC 20002-8004 -
Re: In re OxyContin Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. l603 _
Dear Sir: I
This tirrn represents Actavis Totowa LLC in connection with a Delaware civil action
styled Purdue Pharma L.P., The RF Labs, Inc. and Purdue Plzarms. L.P. v. KVPharm. Co. and `
Activis Totowa LLC, No. O7-cv—OO32 (the "Purdue Action"), which has been designated by
Purdue as a "tag along action” to the above·captioned MDL proceeding. In the Purdue Action,
Purdue alleges that Actavis infringes U.S. Pat. No. 5,508,042 ("the ‘O42 patent") and Actavis has A
counterclaimed for antitrust violations. Actavis intends to ile a motion to stay the antitrust
counterclaims in the Purdue Action.
We write to clarify the record concerning Actavis’ position on transfer ofthe Purdue ·
Action into the MDL proceeding. Purdue’s Notice of Related Actions states that Actavis has not
stated whether it opposes the MDL transfer. To be clear, Actavis does oppose transfer ofthe
Purdue Action into the MDL proceeding for at least the following reasons:
• Purdue improperly seeks to use the MDLstatute as an instrument to avoid personal
jurisdiction barriers. See In re Truck Accident near Alamogordo, New Mexico on
June 18, 1969, 387 F. Supp. 732, 734 (J.P.M.L. 1975). Purdue sued Actavis in
Delaware rather than in the transferee district of New York because Delaware is

V Case 1 :O7—cv—OOO32-***-IVIPT Document 24 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 3 of 3
April 6, 2007
Page 2
Actavis’ state of incorporation and Purdue believed Actavis did not have sufficient
contacts with New York to sustain personal jurisdiction;
• Relative to the Purdue Action, the actions previously consolidated in the MDL
proceeding are at widely divergent stages of discovery. One such case - Purdue
Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim -— was filed in 1999 and has been through a
Federal Circuit appeal; and
• The common questions of fact and similar legal theories asserted by Purdue as the
basis for transfer in its Notice of Related Actions will not be present when the
antitrust counterclaims in the Purdue Action are stayed.
Purdue sued Actavis in Delaware and should live with its choice. Actavis respectfully
_ submits that the MDL Panel should reject Purdue’s efforts to manipulate the MDL statute by
denying transfer of the Purdue Action into the transferee district. Should the MDL Panel issue a
conditional transfer order, Actavis reserves its right to submit a Notice of Opposition and a
Motion to vacate such order. p
Sincerely,
Jonathan A. Harris
cc: Magistrate Judge Hon. Mary Pat Thynge
0 Robert J. Goldman (counsel for Purdue Pharma L.P.)
Jack B. Blumenfeld (counsel for Purdue Pharma L.P.)
Frederick L. Cottrell, HI (counsel for KV Pharmaceutical Company)
John Sweeney (counsel for for KV Pharmaceutical Company)