Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-935-LPS, January 14, 2015.

Stark, C.J. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied and plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery of one defendant is granted.

This is an ANDA case relating to generic dalfampridine extended-release tablets. The court finds, following that the Daimler decision, that neither the parent nor subsidiary defendant are “at home” in Delaware for purposes of general jurisdiction as they are neither Delaware corporation nor do they have their principal place of business in Delaware. The facts that numerous subsidiaries of the parent defendant are incorporated in Delaware, and that the subsidiary defendant is registered to do business in Delaware, are insufficient contacts for general jurisdiction.  The court finds that the subsidiary defendant which is registered to do business in Delaware and has appointed an agent for service of process has consented to general jurisdiction in Delaware.  This conclusion conflicts with the earlier opinion in Astra Zeneca. Since the parent defendant has not registered to do business in Delaware, it has nor similarly consented to jurisdiction in Delaware.  The court also finds specific jurisdiction over the subsidiary defendant that sent a Notice Letter to plaintiff, a Delaware corporation, when plaintiff had already begun litigating patents relating to this suit against another defendant, knowing plaintiff would file suit within 45 days, and would almost certainly sue defendant in Delaware for efficiencies. The court allows jurisdictional discovery to go forward to determine whether there is specific jurisdiction over the parent defendant.