Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 256
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., DAIICHI
`SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED, and
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP,
`
`
`
`
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 20-1524-LPS
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SEAGEN’S
`MOTION TO STAY OR DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`
`Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`agaza@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Seagen Inc.
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`Michael A. Jacobs
`Matthew A. Chivvis
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`(415) 268-7000
`mjacobs@mofo.com
`mchivvis@mofo.com
`
`Bryan Wilson
`Pieter S. de Ganon
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 813-5600
`bwilson@mofo.com
`pdeganon@mofo.com
`
`
`Dated: December 18, 2020
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 257
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II.
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ........................................................ 2
`III.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 3
`IV.
`FACTS ............................................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`The Parties ............................................................................................................. 3
`B.
`The Actions ............................................................................................................ 5
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`This Case Should Be Stayed In Favor Of The First-Filed Texas Case .................. 6
`Both Cases Seek To Resolve Whether ENHERTU Infringes
`1.
`Seagen’s ’039 Patent .................................................................................. 7
`Complete Party Overlap Is Not Required .................................................. 8
`No Exception To The First-To-File Rule Applies ..................................... 9
`The Eastern District Of Texas Should Decide Any Venue Issues
`Raised There In the First Instance ........................................................... 10
`Should The Court Decline To Stay, It Should Dismiss The Case ....................... 12
`1.
`The Court Should Exercise Its Declaratory Jurisdiction Discretion ........ 12
`2.
`Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For ENHERTU’s Alleged Non-
`Infringement Of Seagen’s ’039 Patent ..................................................... 14
`Absent A Stay or Dismissal of the Entire Case, AstraZeneca In All Events
`Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction And Should Be Dismissed ............................ 15
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 18
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 258
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`3G Licensing, S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
`C.A. No. 17-83-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 6442101 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2017) .................................10
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................14
`
`Bank of Am. v. S.I.P. Assets, LLC,
`C.A. No. 07-159-GMS, 2007 WL 2698192 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2007) .....................................15
`
`Beijing Sinotau Med. Rsch. Co. v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-110-LPS-MPT, 2017 WL 819485 (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2017) ....................................9
`
`Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc.,
`495 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................18
`
`Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc.,
`174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Capo, Inc. v. Dioptics Med. Prods., Inc.,
`387 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................13
`
`Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc.,
`528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................17
`
`Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc.,
`881 F. Supp. 2d 609 (D. Del. 2012) .............................................................................10, 11, 15
`
`Chavez v. Dole Food Co.,
`836 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2016).......................................................................................................7
`
`Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army,
`611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1979), overruled on other grounds .....................................................10
`
`Citrix Sys., Inc. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC,
`C.A. No. 19-2005-LPS, 2020 WL 2309073 (D. Del. May 8, 2020) ..........................................7
`
`Corixa Corp. v. IDEC Pharms. Corp.,
`C.A. No. 01-615-GMS, 2002 WL 265094 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2002) ..........................................6
`
`Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp.,
`122 F.2d 925 (3d Cir. 1941).......................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`
` ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 259
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Crosley Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co.,
`130 F.2d 474 (3d Cir. 1942).......................................................................................................9
`
`DermaMed Techs. Corp. v. Passmore Labs,
`C.A. No. 10-00483-CG-B, 2011 WL 1753196 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2011),
`report and recommendation adopted, No. 10-00483-CG-B, 2011 WL
`1752240 (S.D. Ala. May 9, 2011) ............................................................................................11
`
`DIFF Scale Operation Rsch., LLC v. MaxLinear, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 19-2109-LPS-CJB, 2020 WL 2220031 (D. Del. May 7, 2020),
`report and recommendation adopted, C.A. No. 19-2109-LPS-CJB, 2020 WL
`6867103 (D. Del. Nov. 23, 2020) ............................................................................................14
`
`Dippold-Harmon Enters., Inc. v. Lowe’s Cos.,
`C.A. No. 01-532-GMS, 2001 WL 1414868 (D. Del. Nov. 13, 2001) .....................................11
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Univ. of Pa.,
`850 F.2d 969 (3d Cir. 1988), aff’d, 493 U.S. 182 (1990) ................................................3, 6, 10
`
`Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Irwin Fin. Corp.,
`C.A. No. 08-146-GMS, 2009 WL 763899 (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2009)......................................7, 8
`
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Rsch. Corp.,
`737 F.3d 704 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................................6
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds by
`Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) ..............................................................3, 7, 13
`
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Releasomers, Inc.,
`824 F.2d 953 (Fed. Cir. 1987)..................................................................................................13
`
`In re: HTC Corp.,
`889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom. HTC Corp. v. 3G
`Licensing, S.A., 139 S. Ct. 1271 (2019) ...................................................................................10
`
`Intravascular Rsch. Ltd. v. Endosonics Corp.,
`994 F. Supp. 564 (D. Del. 1998) ................................................................................................3
`
`M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda.,
`890 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................10
`
`MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`549 U.S. 118 (2007) .....................................................................................................12, 16, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 260
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`MSK Ins., Ltd. v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.,
`212 F. Supp. 2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)......................................................................................11
`
`N. Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-506-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 5501489 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2017) ...............................15
`
`Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc.,
`765 F.2d 119 (8th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.,
`537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................16, 18
`
`Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Konami Digital Entm’t Inc.,
`C.A. No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 239326 (D. Del. Jan. 19, 2017), report
`and recommendation adopted, C.A. No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL
`1196642 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2017).............................................................................................14
`
`Proofpoint, Inc. v. InNova Pat. Licensing, LLC,
`No. 5:11-CV-02288-LHK, 2011 WL 4915847 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011) ..............................16
`
`Purnell v. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co.,
`No. CIV-08-729-L, 2009 WL 223406 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 29, 2009) .........................................11
`
`Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) ..........................................15
`
`Shell Oil Co. v. Amoco Corp.,
`970 F.2d 885 (Fed. Cir. 1992)..................................................................................................16
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc.,
`230 F. Supp. 3d 351 (D. Del. Jan. 20, 2017) ...........................................................................15
`
`Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. GPNE Corp.,
`497 F. Supp. 2d 584 (D. Del. 2007) .......................................................................................6, 9
`
`Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. USA Video Tech. Corp.,
`520 F. Supp. 2d 579 (D. Del. 2007) ...........................................................................................8
`
`TSMC Tech., Inc. v. Zond, LLC,
`C.A. No. 14-721-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 7498398 (D. Del. Jan 8, 2014) .............................16, 17
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`C.A. No. 18-966-CFC, 2018 WL 5342650 (D. Del. Oct. 29, 2018) .........................................9
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 261
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.,
`515 U.S. 277 (1995) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Zohar CDO 2003-1, Ltd. v. Croscill Home LLC,
`C.A. No. 17-1797-JFB-SRF, 2018 WL 881758 (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2018) ..............................2, 3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) .........................................................................................................................17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A) ..............................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 262
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`On October 19, 2020, defendant Seagen Inc.1 sued plaintiff Daiichi Sankyo Company,
`
`Limited (“DSC”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that DSC’s
`
`antibody-drug conjugate ENHERTU infringes Seagen’s U.S. Patent No. 10,808,039 (the “’039
`
`patent”). One month later, Plaintiffs filed this mirror-image suit seeking a declaratory judgment
`
`that ENHERTU does not infringe the ’039 patent.
`
`This Circuit applies the “first-to-file” rule: Where two patent suits involving the same
`
`claims are filed in different jurisdictions, the first-filed suit is given preference absent
`
`extraordinary circumstances. This rule applies whether or not the parties to both suits are
`
`identical. A corollary of the rule is that the second-filed court should stay the case so that the
`
`first-filed court can apply the rule or otherwise proceed. Rule and corollary serve comity,
`
`preserve judicial and litigant resources, prevent duplicative lawsuits, and minimize the risk that
`
`two parallel trials adjudicating the same issue—whether DSC’s ENHERTU infringes
`
`Seagen’s ’039 patent—reach inconsistent results. This Court should stay this case to permit the
`
`Eastern District of Texas to apply the first-to-file rule or otherwise proceed.
`
`In the alternative, this Court should dismiss the entire case for two independent reasons.
`
`First, it should decline declaratory judgment jurisdiction in light of the duplicative case in Texas.
`
`No useful purpose is served by entertaining a declaratory judgment non-infringement case in this
`
`District when a mirror-image infringement case is pending in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Second, Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to support a plausible claim for non-infringement. The
`
`
`1 Seagen was formerly known as Seattle Genetics, Inc. It changed its corporate name on
`October 8, 2020. (See Declaration of Pieter S. de Ganon in Support of Seagen’s Motion to Stay
`or Dismiss (“de Ganon Decl.”) Ex. 1 (“Seattle Genetics, Inc. Announces Corporate Name
`Change to Seagen Inc.”).) Unless otherwise noted, all referenced exhibits are attached to the
`contemporaneously filed de Ganon Declaration.
`1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 263
`
`
`
`complaint recites a few claim elements of the ’039 patent, supplies a simplified diagram of
`
`ENHERTU’s chemical structure, and briefly explains ENHERTU’s mechanism of action. But it
`
`does not even try to compare ENHERTU to the claims of the ’039 patent or explain why
`
`ENHERTU does not infringe the ’039 patent. Under this Court’s precedent and other decisions
`
`from this District, a complaint fails to state a claim when it contains no attempt to connect
`
`anything in the patent claims to anything about the accused product.
`
`Absent a stay or dismissal of the entire case, the Court should dismiss AstraZeneca,
`
`which lacks standing to sue for declaratory relief. Seagen has never communicated with, much
`
`less sued AstraZeneca, which has not alleged—and cannot seriously allege—an immediate,
`
`definite, and concrete injury or threat of future injury caused by Seagen’s first-filed suit against
`
`DSC. AstraZeneca, the only Plaintiff headquartered in Delaware, appears to have been included
`
`solely to secure venue in Delaware while Plaintiffs attempt to skirt the first-to-file rule.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Plaintiffs filed their complaint here on November 13, 2020. (D.I. 1, 7.) This was 25 days
`
`after Seagen filed its complaint in Texas. (Ex. 2.) It was also just one day after DSC agreed to
`
`waive service of summons in the Texas case and Seagen agreed to extend DSC’s time to answer
`
`there to January 5, 2021.2 (Ex. 3.)
`
`By party stipulation and approval of this Court, the time for Seagen to respond to the
`
`complaint here was extended from December 4, 2020 to December 18, 2020. (D.I. 8.)3
`
`
`2 To the extent that DSC’s response to the complaint in Texas raises issues relevant to this
`motion, Seagen will address those developments in its reply brief (currently due February 1,
`2021, D.I. 8).
`3 Seagen’s motion suspends the time to respond to the complaint because Seagen seeks
`dismissal of the complaint under Rule 12. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A); see also, Zohar CDO
`2003-1, Ltd. v. Croscill Home LLC, C.A. No. 17-1797-JFB-SRF, 2018 WL 881758, at *11 n.19
`(D. Del. Feb. 14, 2018) (“[T]he filing of a motion under Rule 12 tolls the time to respond to a
`2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 264
`
`
`
`III.
`
`1.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Courts in this Circuit recognize the first-to-file rule, which provides that “[i]n all
`
`cases of federal concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first has possession of the subject must
`
`decide it.” E.E.O.C. v. Univ. of Pa., 850 F.2d 969, 971 (3d Cir. 1988), aff’d, 493 U.S. 182
`
`(1990) (citation omitted). This case should be stayed so that the Eastern District of Texas may
`
`determine the application of the first-to-file rule or otherwise proceed.4
`
`2.
`
`In the alternative, this Court should dismiss this case as an exercise of its
`
`discretion to decline declaratory judgment jurisdiction or dismiss for Plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy
`
`Twombly/Iqbal.
`
`3.
`
`While this Court may, in its discretion, stay the case before addressing
`
`jurisdictional issues, if the case is not stayed or dismissed in full, AstraZeneca lacks subject-
`
`matter jurisdiction and should be dismissed.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTS
`
`A.
`
`The Parties
`
`Defendant Seagen is a biotechnology company headquartered in Bothell, Washington,
`
`and incorporated under Delaware law. Seagen helped pioneer the delivery of cancer
`
`
`complaint until fourteen days after the motion is decided.”). Seagen’s request for a stay similarly
`tolls the time for Seagen to answer. See, e.g., Intravascular Rsch. Ltd. v. Endosonics Corp., 994
`F. Supp. 564, 567 n.3 (D. Del. 1998) (noting that “[h]istorically, motions to stay have been
`recognized as tolling the time period for answering a complaint because pre-answer
`consideration of these motions have been found to maximize the effective utilization of judicial
`resources.” (citations omitted)).
`4 This rule is recognized by both the Federal and Fifth Circuits. E.g., Genentech, Inc. v.
`Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 937 (Fed. Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Wilton v.
`Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) (“The general rule favors the forum of the first-filed
`action, whether or not it is a declaratory action.”); Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174
`F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999) (“Under the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending before
`two federal courts, the court in which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it if the issues
`raised by the cases substantially overlap.”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 265
`
`
`
`chemotherapeutics directly to cancer cells by conjugating them to antibodies. Prior to Seagen’s
`
`entry into the field, most chemotherapeutics were not targeted; they would be delivered not just
`
`to cancer cells, but also to healthy cells throughout the patient’s body, causing significant and
`
`often debilitating side-effects. Seagen led the development of many of the innovations in the
`
`field of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) that allowed drugs to be precisely targeted to cancer
`
`cells, minimizing side-effects.
`
`The importance of Seagen’s innovations continues to the present day. On October 20,
`
`2020, Seagen’s ’039 patent issued. It claims Seagen’s proprietary technologies associated with
`
`ADCs, including a protease-cleavable “linker” connecting the antibody and the drug, “cysteine”
`
`conjugation technology, and technology for arriving at a desired “DAR” or drug-to-antibody
`
`ratio.
`
`Plaintiff DSC is a corporation headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, and incorporated under the
`
`laws of Japan. (D.I. 1 ¶ 2.) DSC purports to be in the “business of creating, developing, and
`
`bringing to market revolutionary biopharmaceutical products to treat serious diseases, including
`
`cancer.” (Id.) DSC manufactures ENHERTU (id. ¶ 14), an ADC that Seagen has alleged in its
`
`first-filed complaint infringes the ’039 patent (Ex. 2 ¶ 4).
`
`Plaintiff Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (“DSI”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DSC. (D.I. 4.)
`
`DSI is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey and incorporated under Delaware law.
`
`(D.I. 1 ¶ 1.) DSI “purchases bulk vials of ENHERTU® from DSC and sells packaged
`
`ENHERTU® only to a select network of specialty distributors and pharmacies, who in turn sell
`
`ENHERTU® to customers in the United States.” (Id. ¶ 15.) ENHERTU “is offered for sale and
`
`sold in the United States only by DSI.” (Id. ¶ 13.)
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 266
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (“AstraZeneca”) is a limited partnership
`
`headquartered in Wilmington and organized under Delaware law. (Id. ¶ 3.) It is a subsidiary of
`
`AstraZeneca PLC, a British-Swedish company headquartered in England. (D.I. 6.) AstraZeneca
`
`markets but does not make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import ENHERTU. (D.I. 1 ¶ 16.)
`
`Specifically, it “employ[s] sales representatives who build awareness of ENHERTU® in the
`
`medical community,” publishes “resources to inform patients about taking ENHERTU®,” and
`
`employs “medical science liaisons who educate the medical community about ENHERTU®.”
`
`(Id.)
`
`B.
`
`The Actions
`
`Seagen sued DSC in the Eastern District of Texas on October 19, 2020 CT (October 20,
`
`2020 ET) alleging that DSC’s ENHERTU infringes Seagen’s ’039 patent. Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi
`
`Sankyo Company, Limited, No. 2:20-cv-337 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2020) (the “Texas case”). The
`
`Texas case is pending before Judge Gilstrap. DSC’s response is due on January 5, 2021. (Ex. 3
`
`at 2.) On November 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this mirror-image suit seeking a declaratory
`
`judgment that ENHERTU does not infringe the ’039 patent.
`
`For the past year, DSC and Seagen have been engaged in a separate contractual dispute
`
`over the ownership of linkers, including certain DSC patents, related to ENHERTU. On
`
`November 4, 2019, DSC filed a complaint in this Court seeking “declaratory judgment . . . that
`
`[DSC] has ownership rights to . . . and [Seagen] has no ownership interest in” certain DSC
`
`patents and patent applications. (Ex. 5 ¶ 56.) Seagen’s ’039 patent and whether ENHERTU
`
`infringes that patent were not the subject of that action. At the time, the ’039 patent had not even
`
`issued.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 267
`
`
`
`Because the parties had agreed to arbitrate contractual issues of ownership, Seagen
`
`initiated arbitration and moved this Court to stay DSC’s case, which this Court did on
`
`October 27, 2020. (Ex. 6 at 2.) It was administratively closed on November 13, 2020. (Ex. 7.)
`
`The arbitration is ongoing.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`This Case Should Be Stayed In Favor Of The First-Filed Texas Case
`
`The first-to-file rule requires that this case be stayed. “Where two patent lawsuits
`
`involving the same claims are filed in different jurisdictions, the Federal Circuit requires that the
`
`first-filed action be given preference absent special circumstances.” Corixa Corp. v. IDEC
`
`Pharms. Corp., C.A. No. 01-615-GMS, 2002 WL 265094, at *1 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2002) (citing
`
`Genentech, 998 F.2d at 937). The rule is “even stronger” where, as here, the later-filed action
`
`seeks declaratory judgment. Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Rsch. Corp., 737 F.3d 704, 707–08
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Third Circuit law is no different: “In all cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court which
`
`first has possession of the subject must decide it.” Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d
`
`925, 929 (3d Cir. 1941) (quoting Smith v. McIver, 22 U.S. 532, 535 (1824) (Marshall, J.)).
`
`“Courts must be presented with exceptional circumstances before exercising their discretion to
`
`depart from the first-filed rule.” E.E.O.C., 850 F.2d at 979.
`
`The first-to-file rule serves to “prevent duplicative lawsuits by different federal courts.”
`
`Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. GPNE Corp., 497 F. Supp. 2d 584, 588 (D. Del. 2007) (dismissing
`
`second-filed District of Delaware declaratory judgment case in favor of first-filed Eastern
`
`District of Texas infringement case involving same patent). “[B]ased on sound judicial
`
`administration, comity, and equity,” its “purpose is to avoid differing outcomes on the same
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 268
`
`
`
`issue by two sister courts, thereby minimizing duplicative litigation in different fora, and saving
`
`judicial resources.” Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Irwin Fin. Corp., C.A. No. 08-146-GMS, 2009
`
`WL 763899, at *4 (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2009). The need for consistency is even greater in patent
`
`cases like the one at bar, which implicate “issue[s] of national uniformity.” Genentech, 998 F.2d
`
`at 937.5
`
`1.
`
`Both Cases Seek To Resolve Whether ENHERTU Infringes
`Seagen’s ’039 Patent
`
`This case should be stayed because the issue to be decided in both cases—whether DSC’s
`
`ENHERTU infringes Seagen’s ’039 patent—is the same. Citrix Sys., Inc. v. Parallel Networks
`
`Licensing, LLC, C.A. No. 19-2005-LPS, 2020 WL 2309073, at *9 (D. Del. May 8, 2020)
`
`(“[W]here two suits involving the same issues are filed in different forums, the first suit has
`
`priority.”); Freedom, 2009 WL 763899, at *5 (first-to-file rule applies “where the claims all
`
`pertain to the subject matter of another dispute already before a competent court.”).
`
`There is no question that the Texas case was filed before this case. The Texas case was
`
`filed on October 19, 2020, while this case was not filed until November 13, 2020. (Compare
`
`Ex. 2 with D.I. 1.) Nor is there any question that the two cases address the same issue. The
`
`Texas case alleges that DSC’s ENHERTU infringes Seagen’s ’039 patent. (Ex. 2 ¶¶ 21–24.)
`
`
`5 First-to-file motions are sometimes styled as motions to dismiss or, in the alternative,
`transfer or stay. The Third Circuit has said, however, that “in the vast majority of cases,
`a court exercising its discretion under the first-filed rule should stay or transfer a second-
`filed suit,” noting that its “abstention jurisprudence has long directed district courts to stay, rather
`than dismiss, potentially duplicative federal suits.” Chavez v. Dole Food Co., 836 F.3d 205, 220
`(3d Cir. 2016). Moreover, courts have discretion to stay despite outstanding questions of
`jurisdictional issues. (See infra Section V.C.) Accordingly, Seagen seeks a stay here, and seeks
`a dismissal only in the alternative. A stay is appropriate because it allows the parties to revisit
`remaining issues, if any, after Judge Gilstrap has ruled on any venue-related motion or, if no
`such motion is filed, after Seagen’s claims in the Texas case have been adjudicated. (See infra
`Section V.A.4.)
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 269
`
`
`
`This case is a mirror-image suit, alleging only that DSC’s ENHERTU does not infringe
`
`Seagen’s ’039 patent. (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 27–31.) Because both cases involve infringement of the ’039
`
`patent and “share the same facts and deal with the same allegedly infringing products[,] the
`
`Eastern District of Texas was the first court to have jurisdiction over the alleged infringement”
`
`and “is the first-filed action.” Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. USA Video Tech. Corp., 520 F. Supp.
`
`2d 579, 586 (D. Del. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`2.
`
`Complete Party Overlap Is Not Required
`
`While this case includes two additional plaintiffs—DSC’s wholly-owned subsidiary DSI
`
`and DSI’s “co-markete[r]” AstraZeneca (D.I. 1 ¶ 27)—complete party identity is not a
`
`requirement of the first-to-file rule. “The Third Circuit applies the first-filed rule to litigation
`
`that involves the same subject matter, not necessarily the same parties.” USA Video Tech., 520
`
`F. Supp. 2d at 585; see also Freedom, 2009 WL 763899, at *4 (“Complete identity of the
`
`parties. . . is not required for the ‘first-filed’ rule to apply.”); GPNE, 497 F. Supp. 2d at 589
`
`(“first-to-file rule . . . does not specifically require the exact identity of the parties.”).
`
`It is clear, moreover, that Plaintiffs included AstraZeneca, which is headquartered in
`
`Delaware, to try to avoid the first-to-file rule and secure venue in Delaware. As Seagen
`
`discusses below, AstraZeneca—an entity Seagen never contacted, much less sued—lacks
`
`subject-matter jurisdiction to bring the declaratory claim and should be dismissed. (See infra
`
`Section V.C.) But regardless, adding plaintiffs to circumvent the first-filed rule should not
`
`matter—just as adding defendants doesn’t matter:
`
`[Plaintiffs] cannot avoid the application of the “first-filed” rule simply by filing a complaint
`against different parties . . . where the claims all pertain to the subject matter of another
`dispute already before a competent court. . . . To permit [Plaintiffs] to skirt the “first-filed”
`rule by pleading around the [first-filed] action, would eviscerate the very purpose of the
`rule, which is to avoid duplicate litigation.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 270
`
`
`
`Freedom, 2009 WL 763899, at *5.
`
`That leaves DSC’s wholly-owned subsidiary DSI. (D.I. 4.) As the entity that sells and
`
`markets ENHERTU throughout the United States (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 15–16), DSI suffers no harm from
`
`litigating the same claim along with its parent in Texas, and is free to seek to intervene there.
`
`3.
`
`No Exception To The First-To-File Rule Applies
`
`Courts may decline to follow the first-filed rule only in “rare or extraordinary
`
`circumstances.” Beijing Sinotau Med. Rsch. Co. v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 17-110-LPS-MPT, 2017 WL 819485, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2017) (quoting E.E.O.C., 850
`
`F.2d at 972). Absent specific evidence of bad faith, anticipatory suit, forum shopping—or unless
`
`the second-filed action has developed further than the first—“the first-to-file rule mandates
`
`respect for [the first litigant’s] choice of forum.” GPNE, 497 F. Supp. 2d at 590 (citing
`
`E.E.O.C., 850 F.2d at 976). No exception is present here.
`
`A suit is in bad faith if “not brought . . . for the purpose of securing the relief prayed for.”
`
`Crosley Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 130 F.2d 474, 476 (3d Cir. 1942) (cited by
`
`E.E.O.C., 850 F.2d at 976). Seagen sued in Texas seeking damages for DSC’s infringement of
`
`Seagen’s ’039 patent, precisely the relief prayed for. (Ex. 2 ¶¶ 22–23, 28–29.) DSC concedes as
`
`much. (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 27, 30–31.) Seagen’s suit, moreover, is not anticipatory. It sued in Texas on
`
`the very day the patent issued. (Ex. 4 (patent issued and case filed on October 20, 2020 ET).)
`
`Seagen’s selection of venue was proper. “Every sophisticated plaintiff that can bring a
`
`lawsuit in multiple venues engages in forum shopping when it chooses a particular venue. The
`
`Court’s concern is whether the venue choice is permitted by statute, not what motivated the
`
`plaintiff to select the venue.” VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 18-966-CFC, 2018 WL
`
`5342650, at *2 (D. Del. Oct. 29, 2018) (emphasis added). Seagen sued DSC in Texas because
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 11 Filed 12/18/20 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 271
`
`
`
`DSC, the developer and manufacturer of ENHERTU, is a Japanese corporation headquartered in
`
`Tokyo and can be sued anywhere there is personal jurisdiction. (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 2, 14.) Seagen’s
`
`choice of Texas comports with federal law. First, “suits against alien defendants” like DSC “are
`
`outside the operation of the federal venue laws,” supporting venue in Texas. In re: HTC Corp.,
`
`889 F.3d 1349, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom. HTC Corp. v. 3G Licensing, S.A.,
`
`139 S. Ct. 1271 (2019); see also 3G Licensing, S.A. v. HTC Corp., C.A. No. 17-83-LPS-CJB,
`
`2017 WL 6442101, at *2 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2017). Second, DSC purposefully directs the sale of
`
`ENHERTU to the United States. (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 14–15; see also Ex. 8 (noting that “[t