Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 108 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 4073
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
`
`
`Only Contains Information Confidential to DSC
`
`SEAGEN INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO
`TRANSFER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404 TO THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`sf-4491980
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
`
`
`Only Contains Information Confidential to DSC
`
`SEAGEN INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO
`TRANSFER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404 TO THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`sf-4491980
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 108 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 4074
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The additional discovery that Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. (“DSC”) provided only after the
`
`Court ordered it to do so confirms DSC has not met its burden on its Motion to Transfer.
`
`Seagen, Inc.’s (“Seagen”) opposition argued, inter alia, that this District is not more
`
`inconvenient than Delaware for key witnesses including those in Japan and the West Coast and is
`
`more favorable for accessibility to relevant documents. (Dkt. 66 at 4–12.) The supplemental
`
`discovery the Court ordered has reinforced these arguments, and did not undermine Seagen’s
`
`other bases for opposing transfer. In particular, the new discovery confirmed that DSC’s
`
`activities support Seagen’s claims of direct infringement against DSC, making its witnesses and
`
`documents highly relevant, and refuted DSC’s assertion that most of the relevant documents are
`
`more readily accessible in Delaware.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Seagen filed a motion to compel DSC to respond to certain discovery requests made
`
`during venue and jurisdictional discovery, which DSC had refused to answer. (Dkt. 58.) The
`
`Court granted Seagen’s motion in-part. (Dkt. 81.) Pursuant to that order, Seagen served an
`
`interrogatory regarding the locations of certain documents, to which DSC responded. (Chivvis
`
`Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A.)1 DSC also served supplemental responses to four interrogatories and produced
`
`documents in its custody and in the custody of its U.S. subsidiary, DSI, including additional
`
`details on how Enhertu is shipped to the United States. (Chivvis Decl. ¶¶ 3, 11; Ex. B.) Seagen
`
`also continued its 30(b)(6) deposition of DSC. (Chivvis Decl. ¶ 5; Exs. D, H.)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`
`1 All references to “Chivvis Decl.” or “Ex.” are to the Declaration of Matthew A. Chivvis filed
`contemporaneously with this opposition.
`
`
`sf-4491980
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 108 Filed 06/08/21 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 4075
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DSC’s additional evidence regarding the importation of Enhertu into the U.S. confirms
`
`that DSC’s activities (and therefore the location of its witnesses and documents) are relevant to
`
`the transfer analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
`DSC is wrong to discount the evidence in Japan from the transfer analysis. (See Dkt. 70 at 3–4.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DSC is therefore the importer of Enhertu under the Patent Act and
`
`DSC cannot ignore the location of DSC’s witnesses and documents for the transfer analysis.2
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`, the inquiry is who retained ownership of the product after it entered the
`U.S.—in this case, DSC. (Dkt. 76 at 4); Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626
`F.3d 1222, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Canton R. Co. v. Rogan, 340 U.S. 511, 515 (1951).
`
`
`
`
`
`sf-4491980
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 108 Filed 06/08/21 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4076
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Additional Relevant Documents are Located Outside of Delaware
`
`DSC’s additional discovery refutes its claim that the relevant documents are mostly in or
`
`near Delaware. Delaware is not a clearly more convenient forum than the Eastern District of
`
`Texas with respect to documents.
`
`1.
`
`Documents relating to the DSC’s termination of the collaboration
`agreement and alleged development of Enhertu are in Japan
`
`DSC asserts that it developed its infringing ADC technology independently, despite
`
`having collaborated with Seagen on ADC technology development for nearly a decade. (Dkt. 22
`
`at 4.) DSC does not dispute that the relevant witnesses for the research, development, and
`
`manufacturing of Enhertu are located in Japan. (See Dkt. 70 at 4; Dkt. 76 at 4–5.) These
`
`witnesses are relevant to DSC’s direct infringement as well as the claims for indirect
`
`infringement, contributory infringement, and willful infringement. (See Dkt. 76 at 4–5.)
`
`DSC’s supplemental response confirms that the relevant documents are also in Japan, and
`
`Delaware is not a clearly more convenient forum than this District for those witnesses and
`
`documents. (See Dkt. 66 at 10-11.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`DSC possesses financial data relating to U.S. sales of Enhertu
`
`The location of DSC’s records concerning U.S. financial forecasts and sales of Enhertu
`
`are relevant to the transfer analysis. DSC’s supplemental discovery shows that in addition to the
`
`research and development documents discussed above, copies of the financial records for
`
`
`sf-4491980
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 108 Filed 06/08/21 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 4077
`
`
`
`
`Enhertu are also in Japan, weighing against transfer to Delaware. DSC produced multiple
`
`financial reports and presentations that reflect U.S. sales of Enhertu.3 (Exs. I–M.)
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`The locations of distributor sales records for Enhertu do not support a showing that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Delaware is clearly more convenient than the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`4.
`
`A
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`sf-4491980
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 108 Filed 06/08/21 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 4078
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The Delaware Case is Stayed in Favor of This Litigation
`
`Judicial economy would not be served by transferring this case to the District of
`
`Delaware. On April 28, the Delaware court granted Seagen’s motion to stay that action. (Dkt.
`
`91.) That second-filed litigation does not favor transfer. (Dkt. 66 at 4–6.)
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`DSC’s compelled additional discovery regarding importation and the locations of
`
`relevant evidence show that Delaware is not a clearly more convenient forum. The Court should
`
`deny the motion to transfer.
`
`
`4 The evening before this brief was due, and six days after Mr. Switzer’s deposition, DSC’s
`counsel sent a letter to Seagen claiming that Mr. Switzer, testifying under oath as DSC’s
`corporate designee, was “mistaken” when he gave this testimony. (Chivvis Decl. ¶ 11.) DSC
`has not served any corrections to the deposition transcript and did not explain the basis for its
`counsel’s last-minute contention that the sworn testimony of its corporate designee was
`“mistaken.” (Id.) On the morning this brief was due and twelve days after its court-ordered
`deadline to serve supplemental interrogatory responses (Dkt. 90), DSC served “amended”
`supplemental responses that also contradict Mr. Switzer’s testimony. (Chivvis Decl. ¶ 11.) If
`DSC attempts to introduce new evidence in its reply papers, that would be improper and should
`not be considered by the court. See Narvaez v. Wilshire Credit Corp., 757 F. Supp. 2d 621, 633
`n.11 (N.D. Tex. 2010) (“The Court will not consider arguments or evidence raised for the first
`time in a reply brief.”).
`
`
`sf-4491980
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 108 Filed 06/08/21 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 4079
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 26, 2021
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Michael A. Jacobs
`MJacobs@mofo.com
`Matthew A. Chivvis
`MChivvis@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415.268.7000
`Facsimile: 415.268.7522
`
`Bryan Wilson
`BWilson@mofo.com
`Pieter S. de Ganon
`PdeGanon@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
`Telephone: 650.813.5600
`Facsimile: 650.494.0792
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`Texas State Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: 903.934.8450
`Facsimile: 903.934.9257
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`jw@wsfirm.com
`Charles Everingham IV
`Texas State Bar No. 00787447
`ce@wsfirm.com
`Andrea L. Fair
`Texas State Bar No. 24078488
`andrea@wsfirm.com
`WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
`1507 Bill Owens Parkway
`Longview, Texas 75604
`Telephone: 903.757.6400
`Facsimile: 903.757.2323
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Seagen Inc.
`
`
`sf-4491980
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 108 Filed 06/08/21 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 4080
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). Plaintiff’s counsel of record were served with a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing document by electronic mail on May 26, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sf-4491980
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
