October 16, 2015

Case Name: Eli Lilly & Co. v. Nang Kuang Pharm.Co., Ltd., 1:14-cv-1647-TWP-DKL, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11510 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 24, 2015) 

Drug Product and Patent-in-Suit: Alimta^® (pemetrexed disodium); U.S. Patents Nos. 5,344,932 ("the '932 patent") and 7,772,209 ("the '209 patent")

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Nang Kuang filed an ANDA seeking to manufacture a generic version of Eli Lilly's Alimta drug, used in the treatment of cancer. Before the ANDA was approved, Nang Kuang sent a PIV Certification notice letter to Eli Lilly’s General Counsel in Indianapolis, Indiana. Eli Lilly, incorporated in Indiana, then filed the present action in the Southern District of Indiana, challenging the ANDA. Defendants, based in Taiwan and Texas, moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Southern District of Indiana denied the motion and held that it had jurisdiction over defendants.

Why Eli Lilly Prevailed: Eli Lilly argued that jurisdiction was proper in Indiana because defendants mailed their PIV Certification notice letter to Eli Lilly's General Counsel in Indiana. The Court agreed, and found this was sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Indeed, the act of filing the ANDA and sending the PIV Certification notice letter to Eli Lilly was what gave rise to the litigation in the first place. Defendants’ action, purposefully directed towards a resident of the state, required Eli Lilly to file suit in order to protect its intellectual property rights. Thus, sufficient jurisdictional hooks existed for the court to exercise jurisdiction over defendants.