Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al. v. Zydus Noveltech Inc., C.A. No. 14-1104 - RGA, August 7, 2015

Andrews, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.

The disputed technology is a generic rivastigmine patch.  Defendant is a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of business in Vermont. Only specific jurisdiction is at issue since it is not “at home” in Delaware.  Plaintiff contends there is specific jurisdiction because defendant directed its ANDA notice to a Delaware corporation (where the injury is felt) to its New Jersey office.  The court declines to find jurisdiction on this basis in part because that logic would result in personal jurisdiction where the plaintiff is incorporated for any ANDA defendant regardless of limited contacts with the forum.  The argument that there is jurisdiction because the accused generic drug will eventually find its way to Delaware also fails.  Defendant’s activities have not been purposefully directed to Delaware. It is not registered to do business in Delaware and has no agent to accept process.  It has no property, staff or offices in the state and conducts no business here. No work related to the ANDA was performed in Delaware.  Whether defendant will sell or direct its products to Delaware is speculative at this point.