Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1069
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 Ofwafiifi 369*“ “”
`
`Us. DISTRlCT coum-wvuo
`,
`BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL CLARKSBURG, wv 26301
`ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`JAN 8 =- 2019
`
`In re Kerydin Patent Litigation
`
`
`MDL No.
`
`MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR TRANSFER OF ACTION
`
`TO THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407
`FOR COORDINATED AND CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS
`
`NOW COMES Anacor Pharmaceuticals, inc. (“Anacor” or “Plaintiff”), plaintiffin:
`
`0 Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lupin Limited, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc,
`Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd, Glasshouse Pharmaceuticals Limited Canada,
`
`FlatWing Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Case No. l:l8~cv—001606~RGA (D. Del);
`
`0 Anacar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. V. Ascent Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Zydus
`Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc, Cadila Healthcare Ltd, Apotex Inc, Apatex C0rp.,
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC. Perrigo Pharma International DAC, Perriga
`Company plc, Aleor Dermaceuticals Limited, Cipla Limited, Cipla USA, Inc,
`Aurobina’a Pharma Limited, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc, Taro Pharmaceuticals
`
`USA, Inc. Tara Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd, Case No. 1:18—cv—00l673-
`
`RGA (D. Del);
`
`0 Anacar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alylan Pharmaceuticals Inc, M'ylan Inc, Case
`No. l:l8—cv—0l699-RGA (D. Del.); and
`
`- Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. .Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc, Mylan Inc, Case
`No. 1:18-cv—002024MK (ND. W. Va).
`
`Anacor moves the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, to enter an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l407 and Rule 6.2 of the Rules of
`
`Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transferring Anacor Pharmaceuticals,
`
`Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Mylan Inc, Case No. 1:18—cv~00202-IMK, pending in the
`
`Northern District of West Virginia, to Judge Richard G. Andrews in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware, for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings with
`
`three cases already pending in that district.
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 1070
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 2 of 24 PagelD #: 1070
`
`Transfer for pretrial consolidation and coordination is proper and necessary for the
`
`following reasons, as more fully explained in the accompanying memorandum:
`
`l. This motion seeks transfer and consolidation of four actions for patent
`
`infringement brought under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code, by
`
`Plaintiff Anacor against the following defendants: Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals,
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Lupin”); Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. (“Encube”); Glasshouse Pharmaceuticals
`
`Limited Canada (“Glasshouse”); FlatWing Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“FlatWing”); Ascent
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Ascent”); Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
`
`(collectively, “Zydus”); Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, “Apotex”); Amneal
`
`Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Amneal”); Perrigo Pharma International DAC and Perrigo Company plc
`
`(collectively, “Perrigo”); Aleor Dermaceuticals Limited (“Aleor”); Cipla Limited and Cipla
`
`USA, Inc. (collectively, “‘Cipla”); Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “‘Aurobiiido”); Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Taro Pharmaceutical
`
`Industries, Ltd. (collectively, “Tar-o”); and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc.
`
`(collectively “Mylan”) in the United States District Courts for the District of Delaware and the
`
`Northern District of West Virginia. The defendants listed above are collectively referred to
`
`herein as “Defendants.”
`
`2.
`
`All four actions arise out of Defendants’ filing of Abbreviated New Drug
`
`Applications (“ANDAS”) with the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking
`
`approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of Kerydin® (TAVABOROLE) TOPICAL
`
`SOLUTION 5% (“Kerydin”) prior to the expiration of US. Patent No. 9,459,938 (“the ’938
`
`patent”), US. Patent No. 9,566,289 (“the ’289 patent”), US. Patent No. 9,566,290 (“the ”290
`
`patent”), and US. Patent No. 9,572,823 (“the ”823 patent”) (collectively, “the patents—in-suit”).
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 1071
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 3 of 24 PagelD #: 1071
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Each of the patents—in-suit is listed in the FDA‘s Orange Book for Kerydin.
`
`Anacor filed each of the above-listed actions in response to separate letters
`
`received from Lupin, Encube, Glasshouse, FlatWing, Ascent, Zydus, Apotex, Amneal, Perrigo,
`
`Aleor, Cipla, Aurobindo, Taro, and Mylan in September 2018 notifying Anacor that each of
`
`those parties had submitted an ANDA to the FDA (these fourteen ANDAs are collectively
`
`referred to as “Defendants’ ANDAs”).
`
`5.
`
`The notice letters informed Anacor that Defendants submitted their ANDAs to the
`
`FDA, in order to obtain approval under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) to
`
`engage in the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation of generic
`
`versions of Kerydin prior to the expiration of the patents—in-suit.
`
`6.
`
`The notice letters informed Anacor that Defendants” ANDAS were submitted with
`
`certifications of the type described in Section 5050)(2)(A)(vii)(l\/) of the FDCA, 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 3550)(2)(A)(vii)(lV), asserting that each of the patents-in—suit is invalid, unenforceable, and/or
`
`will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, and/or importation of the
`
`products that are the subject of Defendants” ANDAS (“Defendants’ ANDA Products”).
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Anacor filed each of the above—listed actions in October 2018.
`
`In the above-listed actions, Anacor alleges, among other things, that the
`
`submission of Defendants’ AN DAs before the expiration of the patents-in—suit constituted acts of
`
`infringement of those patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (e)(2)(A).
`
`9.
`
`All of the above—listed actions therefore involve the same core issue: whether
`
`Defendants have infringed any valid and enforceable claims of the patents-in—suit.
`
`10.
`
`The above—listed actions present numerous common issues of fact and law,
`
`including without limitation the technology underlying the patents—in-suit; the prosecution
`
`DJ
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 1072
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 1072
`
`history of the patents—in—suit; claim construction; the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
`secondary indicia of non-obviousness, such as the commercial success of any products
`
`embodying the patents-in—suit and any long-felt but unmet need for the inventions described
`
`therein.
`
`l 1.
`
`All of the abovealisted actions are in their earliest stages. As of the date offiling
`
`of this motion, no conferences have been held with any of the courts; no discovery has taken
`
`place; and no substantive orders have been issued.
`
`i2.
`
`On November 26, 2018, FlatWing moved to stay civil action No. 1:18-cv-001606—
`
`RGA, pending in the District of Delaware, until the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`enters a final written decision in one of four inter partes review proceedings that are currently
`
`pending in that forum.
`
`13.
`
`In the aforementioned inter partes review proceedings, FlatWing and Mylan are
`
`challenging the validity of the patents—in—suit.
`
`14.
`
`In response to FlatWing’s motion to stay, on December 10, 2018, Anacor cross—
`
`moved to stay all three civil actions it filed in the District of Delaware (CA. No. lzl 8-cv—
`
`001606—RGA, CA. No. lzl8-cv-001673-RGA, and i:18—cv—01699—RGA) until the PTAB enters
`
`a final written decision in the four infer panes review proceedings identified in FlatWing’s
`
`motion, and, potentially, to continue the stay through any appeal of the PTAB’s decision.
`
`15.
`
`The parties are still in the process of briefing FlatWing’s and Anacor’s stay
`
`motions, which remain pending.
`
`16.
`
`Anacor has not yet moved to stay the action against Mylan pending in West
`
`Virginia, CA. No. i:l8—cv—00202—IMK, but anticipates that it will do so, and that it will propose
`
`the same stay terms it has proposed in the three Delaware actions.
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 1073
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 5 of 24 PagelD #: 1073
`
`l7.
`
`On December 2i , 20l 8, Mylan moved to dismiss Anacor’s complaint against
`
`Mylan in Delaware in CA. No. lzl8-cv—0l699-RGA asserting improper venue under Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure l2(b)(3) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
`
`18.
`
`Anacor and Mylan are currently discussing a schedule for venue discovery and
`
`briefing of Mylan’s motion.
`
`l9.
`
`Transfer and consolidation of the above—listed actions is necessary to:
`
`(a)
`
`eliminate the potential for inconsistent rulings on pretrial motions, including but not limited to,
`
`FlatWing’s and Anacor’s motions to stay, Mylan’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
`
`and any claim construction rulings; (b) eliminate the burden of duplicative discovery on common
`
`issues; (c) prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; (d) avoid the unnecessary use ofjudicial
`
`resources; and (e) reduce the overall costs and burdens for all of the parties.
`
`20.
`
`Moreover, because the above—listed actions assert infringement through the
`
`submission of ANDAs, the effect of having inconsistent rulings regarding FDA procedures,
`
`claim construction, validity, and ANDA—based infringement would be significant, deleterious,
`
`and an unnecessary strain on court resources.
`
`2].
`
`Three of the above-listed actions are pending before Judge Andrews in the
`
`District of Delaware. All twenty—two Defendants, including Mylan Pharmaceuticals inc. and
`
`Mylan Inc, are named defendants in one of those three Delaware actions.
`
`22.
`
`In addition, Anacor has sued Mylan Pharmaceuticals inc. and Mylan Inc. in a
`
`fourth action pending before Judge Keeley in the Northern District of West Virginia.
`
`23.
`
`Nearly all of the parties have previously engaged in patent litigation in the District
`
`of Delaware and/or have consented to personal jurisdiction and venue in Delaware.
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 1074
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 1074
`
`24.
`
`Judge Andrews has presided over complex patent litigation cases and has
`
`substantial experience with cases involving patent infringement claims against multiple
`
`defendants arising under the Hatch—Waxman Act.
`
`25.
`
`Given the foregoing, the appropriate course of action is to transfer the action
`
`against Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Mylan Inc. that is pending in the Northern District of West
`
`Virginia to Judge Andrews in the District of Delaware, where it can be consolidated for
`
`coordinated pretrial proceedings with the three cases already pending in that district.
`
`Dated: January 7, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`xiv/Anthony H. She/7
`Aaron P. Maurer
`
`David I. Berl
`David M. Horniak
`
`Anthony H. Sheh
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`
`725 Twelfth Street, NW.
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: (202) 434-5000
`F: (202) 434-5029
`amaurer@wc.com
`dberl@wc.com
`dhorniak@wc.com
`asheh@wc.com
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`Megan E. Dellinger
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`1201 North Market Street, 18th Floor
`PO. Box 1347
`
`Wilmington, DE 19899—1347
`(302) 658—9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`mdellinger@mnat.com
`
`James F. Companion
`SCHRADER COMPANION DUFF & LAw, PLLC
`401 Main Street
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 1075
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 1075
`
`Wheeling, WV 26003
`(304) 233—3390
`jfc@schraderlaw.com
`
`Ailomeysfor Plaintgfi“
`Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 1076
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 8 of 24 PagelD #: 1076
`
`BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`
`ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`In re Kerydin Patent Litigation
`
`
`MDL No.
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO TRANSFER TO DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel
`
`on Multidistrict Litigation, Anacor Pharmaceuticals, lnc. (“Anacor”) hereby moves to transfer
`
`Anacor Pharmacezrtticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Mylan Inc, Case No. 1:] 8—cv-
`
`00202—IMK, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West
`
`Virginia, to Judge Richard G. Andrews in the United States District Court for the District of
`
`Delaware, for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings with three actions already
`
`pending in that district.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`In October 2018, Anacor filed three patent infringement complaints1 in the United States
`
`District Court for the District of Delaware. Anacor filed those complaints in response to notice
`
`letters indicating that the defendants had submitted to the FDA, in total, 14 Abbreviated New
`
`Drug Applications (“ANDAS”) seeking approval to manufacture and market generic versions of
`
`Kerydin® (TAVABOROLE) TOPICAL SOLUTION 5% (“Kerydin”) before the expiration of
`
`
`
`1 The Delaware actions are captioned as follows: Anacor Pliarms., Inc. v. Lapin Ltd, Lupin
`Pliarms, Ina, Encabe Ethicals Pvt. Ltd, Glasshouse Pharms. Ltd. Canada, & FlatWing
`Pl7arms., LLC, No. lzl 8—cv—001606-RGA (D. Del.); Anacor Pharms., Inc. v. Ascent Pharms.,
`Ina, Zydus Pharms. (USA) Inc, Cadila Heallheare Ltd, Apotex Ina, Apotex C0117., Amneal
`Pharms. LLC, Perrigo Pharma Int’l DAC, Perrigo C0. plc, Aleor Dermaceuticals Ltd, Cipla
`Lid, Cipla USA, Inc, Aurobindo Pharma Ltd, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc, Taro Plvarms.
`USA, Inc., & Taro Pharm. Indus, Ltd, No. lzl 8-cv—001673-RGA (D. Del.); and Anacor
`Pliarn7s., Inc. v. ll/Iylan Pharms. Inc. & Mylan Inc., No. 1:18-cv—Ol699-RGA (D. Del).
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 1077
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 9 of 24 PagelD #: 1077
`
`Anacor’s Orange Book—listed patents for that product. All three Delaware actions have been
`
`assigned to Judge Andrews. However, two of the Delaware defendants. Mylan Pharmaceuticals
`
`inc. and Mylan Inc. (collectively, “My/lair”), dispute that venue is proper in the District of
`
`Delaware.2 Because Mylan indicated that it would not object to venue in the United States
`
`District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, on October 30, 2018, Anacor filed a
`
`fourth, identical lawsuit against Mylan in that district.3
`
`Anacor has asserted the same four patents4 and causes of action in all four of the above—
`
`described cases, and is seeking the same relief in each case. All twenty of the non—Mylan
`
`defendants are either subject to, or do not object to, jurisdiction and venue in the District of
`
`Delaware. All four actions were filed within a few weeks of each other and are in their earliest
`
`stages. No conferences have been held, no discovery has taken place, and no substantive orders
`
`have been issued.
`
`On November 26, 2018, FlatWing Pharmaceuticals LLC (“FlatWing”) moved to stay one
`
`of the Delaware actions, CA. No. l :18—cv—001606—RGA, until the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) enters a final written decision in inter partes review proceedings in which FlatWing
`
`and Mylan are challenging the validity of the patents—in-suit.
`
`In response to FlatWing’s motion
`
`to stay, on December 10, 2018, Anacor cross—moved to stay all three of the Delaware actions
`
`(CA. Nos. 1:18—cv—001606-RGA, l:l8—CV~OOl673-RGA, and lzlS—cv-Ol699—RGA) until the
`
`
`
`3 Mylan recently moved to dismiss Anacor’s Delaware complaint on the basis of allegedly
`improper venue. See No. 1:18~cv—01699—RGA, D.l. l4-l6 (D. Del. Dec. 21, 2018). Anacor and
`Mylan are currently discussing a schedule for venue discovery and briefing of Mylan’s motion.
`
`3 The West Virginia action is captioned Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylar;
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & M110171}7C., No. 1:18—cv—00202-IMK (ND. W. Va).
`
`4 The patents are US. Patent No. 9,459,938 (“the ’938 patent”), US. Patent No. 9,566,289 (“the
`’289 patent”), US. Patent No. 9,566,290 (“the ’290 patent”), and US. Patent No. 9,572,823
`(“the ’823 patent”).
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 1078
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 10 of 24 PagelD #: 1078
`
`PTAB enters a final written decision in the four inter partes review proceedings identified in
`
`FlatWing’s motion, and, ifthe PTAB determines that all ofthe claims of all of the patents—in—suit
`
`are unpatentable, to continue the stay through any appeal of the PTAB’S decision. The parties
`
`are still in the process of briefing FlatWing’s and Anacor’s stay motions. Anacor has not yet
`
`moved to stay the action pending in West Virginia, but anticipates that it will do so, and that it
`
`will propose the same stay terms it has proposed in the three Delaware actions.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Panel may centralize cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 if the movant establishes
`
`three elements: (1) that “common questions of fact” exist; (2) that centralization will “be for the
`
`convenience of [the] parties and witnesses”; and (3) that centralization “will promote the just and
`
`efficient conduct of [the] actions.” Transferring the West Virginia action to the District of
`
`Delaware so that it can be centralized with the three cases pending before Judge Andrews
`
`satisfies these requirements.
`
`I.
`
`There Are Common Questions of Fact.
`
`Where, as here, the same patents are asserted in separate, parallel actions, “[a]ll actions
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. can be expected to share factual and legal questions concerning such matters as the
`
`technology underlying the patents, prior art, claim construction and issues of infringement
`
`involving the patents.” In re Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc, Patent Litig, 360 F. Supp. 2d
`
`1362, 1364 (J.P.M.L. 2005). The common questions of fact that will predictably arise in each of
`
`the four pending actions can be roughly grouped into the following three categories.
`
`First, all 14 ANDA filers have alleged in notice letters sent to Anacor that the patents-in-
`
`suit are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Determining the obviousness of the claimed
`
`inventions is a legal issue common to all four cases.
`
`It requires underlying factual inquiries that
`
`are common to all four cases, including, among other things, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`'3
`J
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 1079
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 11 of 24 PagelD #: 1079
`
`the scope and content of prior art, whether the person of ordinary skill (“POSA”) would have
`
`been motivated to the combine prior art references, and whether the POSA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention. E. g., Apple Inc. v.
`
`Samszmg Elecs. Ca, 839 F.3d 1034, lOSl (Fed. Cir. 20l6) (en banc).
`
`In addition, because
`
`obviousness is being addressed by the PTAB in the inter partes review proceedings initiated by
`
`FlatWing and Mylan, determining this issue will also require consideration of the effect of the
`
`PTAB’S ruling, another issue common to all four cases.
`
`Second, each ANDA filer purports to have submitted an ANDA to the FDA requesting
`
`approval to manufacture and market a generic version of Kerydin using a label based on
`
`Kerydin’s FDA—approved label. Accordingly, common questions will be presented as to whether
`
`these regulatory submissions constitute infringement of the patents—in-suit under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 27l (e)(2), and whether the proposed ANDA products will directly or indirectly infringe
`
`Anacor’s patents under other provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Tbird, Anacor is seeking a permanent injunction against all 22 defendants to preclude,
`
`among other things, marketing of the infringing products prior to the expiration of the patents—in-
`
`suit. The availability of permanent injunctive relief will turn on four common questions of fact.
`
`See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 US. 388, 391-92 (2006) (observing that to obtain
`
`permanent injunction, “[a] plaintiff must demonstrate:
`
`(1) that it has suffered an irreparable
`
`injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to
`
`compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff
`
`and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be
`
`disserved by a permanent injunction”). Additionally, in the event any defendants attempt to
`
`market their ANDA products before these cases are decided, Anacor may seek preliminary
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 1080
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 12 of 24 PagelD #: 1080
`
`injunctive relief, the availability of which will also turn on common questions of fact. See, eg,
`
`iMetalcrafi' ofMayville, Inc. v. Toro Co, 848 F.3d 1358, 1363~64 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`II.
`
`Transfer Will Serve the Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses.
`
`Centralization of these cases before Judge Andrews will serve the convenience of the
`
`parties and witnesses. Most immediately, it will ensure a consistent approach to the decision of
`
`whether or not to stay these cases, and for how long, in view of the inter partes review
`
`proceedings currently pending before the PTAB.
`
`It will also ensure a common pretrial schedule,
`
`common fact and expert discovery, and a streamlined and consistent approach to motions
`
`practice, claim construction, and summaryjudgment.
`
`It will also obviate the need for witnesses
`
`to appear and participate in more than one proceeding.
`
`Centralization in the District of Delaware will maximize these benefits as three of the
`
`four actions are already pending there and have already been assigned to Judge Andrews, and 20
`
`of the 22 defendants (comprising 13 of the 14 total defendant groups) are exclusively defendants
`
`in Delaware. See, cg, In re Alfuzosin Hydrochloride Parent Ling, 560 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 1374
`
`(J .P.M.L. 2008) (centralizing four Hatch—Waxman cases in the District of Delaware by
`
`transferring to Delaware one action pending in the Southern District of Florida); see also, e. g, In
`
`re UnifiedIl/Iessaging Solutions LLC Patent Litig, 883 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1342 (J.P.M.L. 2012);
`
`In re Bill ofLaa’ing Transmission & Processing System Patent Litig, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1341
`
`(J .P.M.L. 2009). Nearly all of the parties are repeat litigants in Delaware and/or have previously
`
`consented to personal jurisdiction or venue in Delaware, whereas only a few have ever appeared
`
`in West Virginia.5 Moreover, Judge Andrews has substantial experience handling multi—
`
`
`
`5 Of the twenty—two named defendants, all but six—«Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd, Glasshouse
`Pharmaceuticals Limited Canada, FlatWing, Perrigo Pharma International DAC, Perrigo
`Company plc, and Aleor Dermaceuticals Limited—“have previously litigated and/or consented to
`personal jurisdiction and/or venue in Delaware. See Compl. fl 34, Anacor Pharms., Inc. v. Lupin
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 1081
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 13 of 24 PagelD #: 1081
`
`defendant Hatch—Waxman matters. See, e. g, Novartis Pliarm. Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharm,
`
`Inc, 248 F. Supp. 3d 578, 582 (D. Del. 2017) (trial opinion in Hatch—Waxman case involving
`
`multiple ANDA filers); Sanofi v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc, USA, 204 F. Supp. 3d 665, 670 (D. Del.
`
`2016) (same).
`
`III.
`
`Transfer Will Promote the Just and Efficient Conduct of the Actions.
`
`Anacor’s patent—infringement lawsuits present a textbook example of a circumstance
`
`where centralization will promote the “just and efficient” conduct of the actions. The Panel has
`
`previously recognized that in Hatch—Waxman cases, centralization eliminates duplicative
`
`discovery, prevents inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserves the resources of the parties, their
`
`counsel, and thejudiciary. In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Ling, 560 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 1382
`
`(1.P.M.L. 2008).
`
`indeed, centralization of Hatch—Waxman cases was expressly contemplated by
`
`the drafters ofthe Hatch—Waxman Act. See HR. Rep. No. 98—857, pt. 1, at 28 & n.14 (1984).
`
`The Panel has repeatedly observed that Hatch—Waxman cases “are particularly well-suited for
`
`transfer under Section 1407,” Roswasratin, 560 F. Supp. 2d at 1383; In re Desloraradine Patent
`
`Ling, 502 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1355 (.1.P.M.L. 2007) (citing In re Metoprolol Succinate Parent
`
`Ling, 329 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (I.P.M.L. 2004)), and “has frequently centralized litigation
`
`
`
`Lid, Case No. 1:18-cv—01606-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2018). ECF No. 1 (attached as Exhibit 1);
`Compl. W 68, 76, 84, 91, 1 12, 120, 128, Anacor Piiarms., Inc. v. Ascent Pliarina, Inc, Case No.
`1:18—cv—01673-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2018), ECF No. 1 (attached as Exhibit 2); see also
`Compl., Anacor Pharms, Inc. V. Il/[ylan Pharms. Inc. Case No. 1:18—cv-01699—RGA (D. Del.
`Oct. 29, 2018), ECF No. 1 (attached as Exhibit 3); Compl., Anacor Pharlns., Inc. v. .Mylan
`Pharms. Inc, Case No. 1:18-cv—00202—1MK (ND. W. Va. Oct. 30, 2018), ECF No. 1 (attached
`as Exhibit 4). With the exception of Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, lnc.,
`undersigned counsel is not aware of any other defendants that have entered an appearance in
`either the Northern or Southern District of West Virginia in the last ten years. See Harris v.
`Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 2:16-cv—00008-1PB (ND. W. Va); IlIyZan Pharms. Inc. v. FDA,
`Case No. 1:14-cv-00075—1MK (ND. W. Va.).
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 1082
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 1082
`
`comprised of only two Hatch-Waxman Act cases,” In re Nebivolol (’040) Patent Litig. , 867 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 1354, 1355 & n.4(J.P.1\/1.L.2012).6
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Anacor respectfully requests that the Panel transfer Anacor
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Il/Iylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & 1143/1017 1170., Case No. 1:18—CV—00202—
`
`IMK, pending in the Northern District of West Virginia, to Judge Andrews in the United States
`
`District Court for the District of Delaware, for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings.
`
`Dated: January 7, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Anlhonv H. She/7
`Aaron P. Maurer
`
`David 1. Berl
`David M. Horniak
`
`Anthony H. Sheh
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: (202) 434—5000
`F: (202) 434—5029
`amaurer@wc.com
`dberl@wc.com
`dhorniak wwccom
`
`asheh@wc.com
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`Megan E. Dellinger
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street, 18th Floor
`PO. Box 1347
`
`Wilmington, DE 19899—1347
`(302) 658—9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`mdel1inger@mnat.com
`
`6 See also I'd. (Citing In re Armodafmil Patent Ling, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (.1.P.1\/1.L. 2010); In re
`Brimonidinc Patent Ling, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2007); In re Mel’oprolol Succinale
`Parent Ling, 329 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (.1.P.M.L. 2004)).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 1083
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 1083
`
`BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`In re Kerydin Patent Litigation
`
`
`MDL No.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`1 hereby certify that on this 7th day of January 2019, 1 caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the forgoing Motion, Memorandum, Schedule of Actions, and this Certificate of Service to be
`
`served on the following via FedEx.
`
`Case No. 1:18—cv—01606-RGA gD. Dem
`
`Office of the Clerk
`United States District Court
`
`844 North King Street, Unit 18
`Wilmington, DE 19801 ~3570
`
`William R. Zimmerman
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, 111
`
`Katharine Lester Mowery
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER PA
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`cotrell@r1f.com
`mower@rlf.com
`
`Andrea L. Cheek
`Aryeh Feinstein
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`1717 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Ste. 900
`Washington, DC 20006
`Bill.Zimmerman@knobbe.com
`Andrea.Cheek@knobbe.com
`Ari.Feinstein@knobbe.com
`
`Carol Pitzel Cruz
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`Carol.Pitzel.Cruz@knobbe.com
`
`Counselfor Defendants Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 1084
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 16 of 24 PagelD #: 1084
`
`Gary J. Speier
`Samuel T. Lockner
`
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH, &
`LINDQUIST, RA.
`
`Capella Tower
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`gspier@carlsoncaspers.com
`slockner@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Kelly E. Farnan
`Renee M. Mosley
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA.
`
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 129801
`farnan@rlf.com
`mosley@rlf.com
`
`Caunselfor Defendant Encube EthicaZS Pvt. Ltd.
`
`Elizabeth J. Holland
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`
`eholland@goodwinlaw.com
`chardman@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Karen E. Keller
`
`Nathan R. Hoeschen
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`
`I.M. Pei Building
`1 105 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`kkeller@shawkeller.com
`nhoeschen@shawkeller.com
`
`Counselfor Defendant Glasshouse Pharmaceuticals Limited Canada
`
`Marc Wezowski
`
`Don J. Mizerk
`David Gerasimow
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`
`120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`marowezowski@huschblackwell.com
`don.mizerk@huschblackwelLoom
`david.gerasimow@huschblackwell.Com
`
`John C. Phillips
`Megan C. Haney
`PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN, MCLAUGHLIN &
`HALL, PA.
`1200 Nonh Broom Street
`
`Wilmington, DE l9806-4204
`jcp@pgmhlaw.com
`mch@pgmhlaw.com
`
`Counselfor Defendant Flat Wing Pharmaceuticals, LLC
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 1085
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 1085
`
`Case No. 1:18-cv—01673—RGA (D. Del.)
`
`Office of the Clerk
`
`United States District Court
`
`844 North King Street, Unit 18
`Wilmington, DE 19801-3570
`
`Robert S. Silver
`Salvatore Guerriero
`
`CAESAR Rmse, PC
`1635 Market Street
`Seven Penn Center, 12th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`R Touhey Myer
`CAESAR ‘RIVISE, PC
`
`800 N. King St, Suite 304
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`tmyer@crbcp.com
`
`Counsel ‘for Defendant Ascent Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`Myoka Kim Goodin
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`
`1 1 1 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`mkgoodin@lockelord.com
`
`Counselfor Defendants Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
`
`John C. Phillips
`Megan C. Haney
`PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN, MCLAUGHLIN &
`HALL, PA.
`1200 North Broom Street
`
`Wilmington, DE 19806—4204
`jcp@pgmhlaw.com
`mch@pgmhlaw.com
`
`Deepro R. Mukerjee
`Lance Soderstrom
`Stephanie M. Roberts
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
`575 Madison Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10022—2585
`deepro.mukerjee@kattenlaw.com
`lance.soderstrom@kattenlaw.com
`stephanie.roberts@kattenlawcom
`
`Joseph M. ,lanusz
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
`
`550 South Tryon Street, Suite 2900
`Charlotte, NC 28208—421 3
`
`joseph.j anusz@kattenlaw.com
`
`Counselfor Defendants Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp.
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 1086
`Case 1:18-cv-00202-IMK Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 Page 18 of 24 PagelD #: 1086
`
`Barry P. Golob
`Kerry B. McTigue
`W. Blake Coblentz
`
`Aaron S. Lukas
`
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`1200 19th Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20036
`bgolob@cozen.com
`kmctigue@cozen.com
`wcoblentz@cozen.com
`alukas@cozen.com
`
`Keri L. Schaubert
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`277 Park Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10172
`
`kschaubert@cozen.com
`
`Anne Shea Gaza
`Robert M. Vrana
`Samantha G. Wilson
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`agaza@ycst.com
`rvrana@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`Counselfor Defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC
`
`Gary E. Hood
`Mark T. Deming
`Helena Berezowskyj
`POLSINELLI PC
`150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000
`Chicago, IL 60606
`ghood@polsinelli.com
`mdeming@polsinelli.com
`hberezowskyj@polsinelli.com
`
`Melanie Sharp
`James L. Higgins
`Michelle M. Ovanesian
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`msharp@ycst.com
`jhiggins@ycst.com
`movanesian@ycst.com
`
`Counselfor Defendants Perrig0 Pharma International DAC and Perrig0 Company plc
`
`Manish K. Mehta
`BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN &
`ARONOFF LLP
`
`Kevin M. Capuzzi
`BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN &
`ARONOFF LLP
`
`333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1900
`
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 801
`
`Chicago, 1L 60606
`mmehta@beneschlaw.com
`
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`kcapuzzi@beneschlaw.com
`
`Michael S. Weinstein
`
`BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN &
`AR