Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-md-01866-GIVIS Document 2 Filed 08/21 /2007 Page 1 of 4
t UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS: _ DIRECT REPLY TO:
Judge John G. Heyburn Il Judge D. Lowell Jensen Judge Kathryn Yfatll
United States District Court United States Distriet Court UQIITQII St¤t¤5 DlSt1’1¤t CGI-\l”t Jeffery N. Liithi
Western District of Kentncky Northern District of California District of Kansas Clerk ofthe Panel
One Columbus Circle, NE
Judge J. Frcderiek Motz Judge David R. Hansen Thurgood Marshall Federal
United States District Court United St_ates_Court ol`Appeals Judiciary Building
Distriet of Maryland Eighth Crrcnit Room G-255, North Lobby
_ _ Washington,D.C. 20002
Jndge Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge Anthony J. Serrrca
United States District Conrt United States Court of Appeals Telephone: [202] 502-2800
Northern District of Indiana Third Circuit Fax: [202] 502-2888
http://www.jpm1.use0urts.gov
August 20, 2007
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet [ __g__ [ [[ [ [[ [ [[
Chief Judge, U.S. District Court [ F ~· ·-l - - -l-....[[_
4324 J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building ,j‘ ‘ ·- - -- . · . -- .
844 North King Street P _ ,
Lockbox 19 AUG 2 1 taut g ·
Wilmington, DE 19801-3519 [[_[_ [ _[ _[[[ §»lr'
Re: MDL-1866 -- IN RE Brimonidine Patent Litigation ° ‘"‘‘‘ ‘‘‘’‘‘e in - ~_[_M_[_ _[_[[
Allergcm, Inc. v. Exela Pharmsci, Inc., er al., C.D. California, C.A. No. 2:07-1967
Allergan, Inc. v. Aporex, Inc., at al., D. Delaware, C.A. No. 1:07-278 (Aim 5
Dear Judge Sleetz
Enclosed is a copy of a letter directed to the Clerk of your district advising that the above-referenced
litigation has been transferred to you under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The materials referenced in today's letter are
enclosed for your convenience.
As you may know, all multidistrict litigation statistics are maintained by this office and submitted to
the Administrative Office for inclusion in the Annual Report of the Director. Consequently, once yearly we
will verify with your Clerk the actual number and status ofthe actions assigned to you, including actions
added to the docket either by transfer of tag-along actions or additional related actions originally filed in
your district. A copy of our inquiry to your Clerk will be directed to you for your information.
We have a Citrix remote access server for use by transferee courts in accessing our database for
information regarding assigned multidistrict litigation. The server can be accessed by you if you have a
Windows based personal computer with DCN access. Our database contains transferor and transferee
information for each action transferred by the Panel and actions filed in your district. Counsel identified in
the database are those who made appearances in the transferor districts, counsel who filed appearances
before the Panel and counsel assigned by you as liaison counsel. Also, each individual action is tracked
from the date of transfer to termination either by dismissal, remand to transferor district, remand to state
court, etc. lf you are interested in utilizing the server, please feel free to contact our Systems Administrator,
Al Crhiorzi, to establish a password and receive instructional information.

_ Case 1:07-md-01866—GI\/IS Document 2 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 2 of 4
Your attention is directed to Rule 7.6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict A
Litigation, 199 F.R.D. 425, 436-38 (2001), dealing with termination and remand of actions transferred by
the Panel. Specifically, the rule states, in part, the following:
(a) Actions terminated in the transferee district court by valid judgment, including
but not limited to summary judgment, judgment of dismissal and judgment upon stipulation,
shall not be remanded by the Panel and shall be dismissed by the transferee district court ....
(b) Each action transferred only for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
that has not been terminated in the transferee district court shall be remanded by the Panel to
the transferor district for trial ....
(c) The Panel shall consider remand of each transferred action or any separable
claim, cross-claim, counterclaim or third—party claim at or before the conclusion of
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings on...suggestion of the transferee district
court .... .
We will promptly act upon any written notices from you that remand of actions or separable claims R
transferred under Section 1407 is appropriate.
Please be sure the Panel receives copies of pertinent orders filed by you in this litigation. Also, if
you appoint liaison counsel, in your pretrial order outlining liaison counsel's responsibilities, please
consider reinforcing Panel Rule 5.2(e), which provides:
If following transfer of any group of multidistrict litigation, the transferee district
court appoints liaison counsel, this Rule [Panel Rule 5.2, Service of Papers Filed Before the
Panel] shall be satisfied by serving each party in each affected action and all liaison counsel.
Liaison counsel designated by the transferee district court shall receive copies of all Panel
orders concerning their particular litigation and shall be responsible for distribution to the
parties for whom he or she serves as liaison counsel.
Please feel free to contact this office if we may be of assistance to you.
Very truly,
Jeffery N. Liitlii
7 _,C,lerle»o h€“P· _ _ _ -
é;;aM..rr. {fr __ _ . ‘ I
\___,- _-_. -- · . U _
B . ' _. _`·_ A j· ‘.__t
' Mecca S. Tho pson
` ~~‘Delp_u ’ erk
Enclosures
cc: Clerk, United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
JPML Form 23

A Case 1 :07-md-01866-GIVIS Document 2 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 3 of 4
NEL ON
Q CEHTIFIED TRUE cow L\T\GATlOt€
. _ aaa jr. za nar
I§SiQ..5 @i ( ata
7 -`· in ` i ITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL QLEHWS QFWGE
3* .rfL T§‘_ . .»4· N _
R DICIALIBAN 5F DN 0**
.. LTIDI . · - .1+11 T10N MULrrD1sTRrcT LIT1GAT1oN
:7
IN {RE: BRIMONIDINE PATENT LITIGATION
Allergan, Inc. v. Exela Pharrnsci, Inc., et al., )
C.D. California, C.A. No. 2:07-1967 ) MDL No. 1866
Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., et al., ) .,,,,.. . .. ...... .. _...... --.. A . - -. .-... .
D. Delaware, C.A. No. 1:07-278 S' ) § g M ` P
TRANSFER ORDER AUP 21 wm
. ,_.,....,_ ...
‘ ‘‘‘’‘ s or ta;
. .. . . 3,....- ..... C
Before the entire Panel :Commonpla1nt1ff Allergan, Inc.,has m · · , • · • · -1 va »e»~ —* —···= ·
§ 1407, to centralize this litigation in the District of Delaware. This litigation currently consists of
two actions pending in the Central District of California and the District of Delaware, respectively.
Responding defendants‘ oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these two actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of
Delaware will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Both actions involve common factual allegations conceming validity and
enforceability of five of plaintiffs patents used in making drugs for the treatment of glaucoma.
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.
Defendants base a significant part of their opposition to centralization on their concern that
transfer will engender further delays in a litigation in which time is of the essence. We are
sympathetic to this concern but view it as misplaced. Transfer under Section 1407 will have the
salutary effect of assigning the present actions to a single judge who can formulate a pretrial program
that ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a manner leading to the just and
expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties and the courts. Indeed,
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, ag., In
re Metoprolol Succinate Patent Litigation, 329 F.Supp.2d 1368 (J.P.M.L. 2004) (ordering transfer
i Judge Scirica took no part in the disposition of this matter.
I Exela Pharrnsci, Inc., Exela Pharm Sci Pvt., Ltd., Paddock Laboratories, Inc., PharrnaForce,
Inc., Apotex, Inc., and Apotex Corp.

Case 1 :07-md-01866-GIVIS Document 2 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 4 of 4
- 2 -
under Section 1407 of two actions in which the patentholder alleged infringement of two complex
- pharmaceutical patents).
We conclude that the District of Delaware is an appropriate transferee forum in this docket.
An earlier action involving this same plaintiff and two of the same tive patents was brought in that
district in 2004. That action, which was overseen by the Honorable Gregory M.- Sleet, was actively
litigated and remained pending until early 2006, when a settlement was reached on the eve of trial.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the one action pending
in the Central District of California is transferred to the District of Delaware and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings with the action pending in that district.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
0 John G. Heyburn ll
Chairman
D. Lowell Jensen J . Frederick Motz
Robert L. Miller, Jr. Kathryn H. Vratil
David R. Hansen Anthony J. Scirica*

Case 1:07-md-01866-GMS

Document 2

Filed 08/21/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-md-01866-GMS

Document 2

Filed 08/21/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-md-01866-GMS

Document 2

Filed 08/21/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-md-01866-GMS

Document 2

Filed 08/21/2007

Page 4 of 4