Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

.
I Case 1 :08-cv—00359-JJ F-LPS Document 39 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 3
2 -‘ v -. _,__ I;
A CERTlFlE.`D TRUE COPY .
. , UNITED STATES
- ·°·“¤'FES”¤” _ suoncva. mast on
Mulsnuletltlct L.|“l“IGATl0N
- By April Layne on Jun 13, 2008 1 1 1
UNI'! Isl} STATES JUDICIAL PANEL Jun 13I 2008
m.llthl<‘j!LN$1il;éEEFgE$ I lvI|_lL'I‘IDIS'I‘RI(l3IT LITIGATIDN FILED
MUL’flUlS`fF{lCT LlTl»GA”l'lClN
IN RE: R(JSUVASTA'I`IN CALCIUM
PATENT LITI(`}A'I`IDN MDL. No. 1949
b o1·0oao
_ TRANSFER ORDER
Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca UK Limited,
IPR Phannaceuticals, lnc., and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha (collectively AstraZeneca) have
moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the District of Delaware. This
litigation currently consists of nine actions, seven actions in the District of Delaware and one action
each in the District of New Jersey and the Middle District of Florida, as listed on Schedule A.
. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., which is a defendant in one ofthe Delaware actions, supports
centralization, but asks that the Panel select either the District of New Jersey or the Middle District of
Florida as transferee district. Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.
(collectively Aurobindo), which are defendants in one of the Delaware actions and the New Jersey
action, oppose centralization, as do Apotea Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively Apotex), which are
defendants in one of the Delaware actions and plaintiffs in the Florida action. lf the Panel orders
centralization over these parties’ objections, then Apotex urges that the Panel select the Middle District
of Florida as transferee district, while Aurobindo asks that the Panel select a district with more
favorable docket conditions than the District of Delaware.
Cin the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these nine actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 will serve the convenience ofthe
parties and witnesses and promote thc just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All nine actions
involve common factual allegations concerning U.S. Patent Nos. RE37,3 14 (the *314 patent) or
6,316,460 (the ‘460 patent), which are both listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s register of
pharmaceutical patents for AstraZeneca’s Crestor drug. Centralization under Section 1407 will
eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly on claim construction
issues), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
In opposition to centralization, Aurobindo and Apotex argue that alternatives to centralization
are both a.vailable and preferable, and Apotex contends that the Florida lawsuit is a straightforward
action involving only a declaratory judgment claim for non-infringement as tothe ‘460 patent. Based
upon the Pancl’s precedents and for the following reasons, we respectfirlly disagree with these
- arguments. Actions involving the validity of complex pharmaceutical patents and the entry of generic
versions of the patentholder’s drugs are particularly well-suited for transfer under Section 1407. See.
eg., In re Brimonidirie Pc1ierriLiiigdti¤n, 507 F .Supp.2d 1331, 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2007). The two patents L

. .
U Case 1 :08-cv—00359-JJF-LPS Document 39 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 013
I ° ·" ‘ ‘t .·•·‘
- 2 -
E at issue both relate to A.straZeneca’s Crestor drug, and centralization will place all actions in this docket
before a single judge who can structure pretrial proceedings to accommodate all parties’ legitimate
discovery needs while ensuring that the common patties and witnesses are not subjected to discoveiy
demands that duplicate activity that will or has occurred in other actions. See In re Department of
Vetertm.rAji"atr.s (VA} Data T/·1aflLitigrrtfon, 461 F.Supp.2d 1367, 1368-69 (J.P.M.L.. 2006). Discovery
with respect to any case—specitic issues can also proceed concurrently with discovery on common issues.
See id.
i We are persuaded that the District ot`Delaware is an appropriate transferee district tor pretrial
i proceedings in this litigation. Seven ofthe nine actions, including the t`irst—filed actions, are already
5 pending in that district, and in assigning the litigation to Judge Joseph J. Faman, Jr. (who is already
overscein g the seven Delaware actions), we are entrusting the docket to a jurist who has the experience
to steer it on a prudent course. L
1TlS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 l,l.S.C. § l407, the two actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the District of Delaware are transferred to the District of Delaware and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joseph .I. Farnan, Jr., for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
E PANEL ON lVlULTlDlSTRlCT LlTlGA'l`lON
/ In
Joh G. Hcyburn Il
E Chairman
l
i D. Lowell Jensen J. Frederick Motz
Robert L. Miller, Jr. Kathryn H. Vratil
David R. Hansen Anthony J. Scirica

i Case 1 :08-cv—00359-JJF-LPS Document 39 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 3 013
I E- ' · ··¤‘ • . I--P.
IN RE: ROSLlVAS'I`A'I`IN CALCIUM
PATENT LITIGATIGN MDL N0. 1949
SCHEDULE A
District cf Delaware
| AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, etal. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
C.A. Nu. 1:07-805
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., et al.,
i C./—\. Ne. 1:07-806
` AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, etal. v. Sariduz, lric., CA. ND. 1:07-807
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., CA. Nc. 1:07-SOS
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, etal. v. Aputex, lnc., et al., C..·'L. Nu. 1:07-809
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, ct al. v. Aurcbindc Pharma Ltd., etal.,
CA. Nc. 1:07-810
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al. v. Ccbalt Pharmaceuticals, Inc., etal.,
C.A. Nc. 1:07-B11
Middle District cf Flcrida
Apulex, 1.nc. v. AstraZ.er1eca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. Nc. 8:08-213
District uf New Jersey
1 AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, etal. v. Aurcbindc Pharma Ltd., et al.,
2 C.A.1*·lu. 3:07-6020
LT].`l*1‘1‘Z1.ll'1 RTI K {
A.} A PHUE UGFY £
· ATTEST: ,
PETER T. CLERK
BY ____ _
Deputy Glark

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 39

Filed 06/18/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 39

Filed 06/18/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 39

Filed 06/18/2008

Page 3 of 3