OnDemand

Establishing Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman Litigation: Daimler AG v. Bauman and Other Recent Cases

Price: $224 OnDemand

FULFILL ALL YOUR CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDITS FOR $399

Sign up today for an entire year of unlimited access to relevant, timely professional learning courses, including webinars, eLearning courses and OnDemand offerings, and keep your professional credits up to date. All for just $399.

Learn more about the subscription!

SUBSCRIBE NOW

DESCRIPTION

This program will address when personal and subject matter jurisdiction can be properly asserted in connection with abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) litigation, including against a foreign corporation based on the general local activities of its subsidiary. In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown and Daimler AG v. Bauman, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that for proper exercise of general jurisdiction, connections to forum must be so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum. A parent corporation is no longer subject to general jurisdiction in a state based on the in-state contacts of its subsidiary.

The faculty will discuss the impact of these cases on ANDA litigation and provide practical strategies for establishing jurisdiction, including the use of agency theory. They will also address the state of the law regarding subject matter jurisdiction, including whether infringement actions against ANDA filers must be based only on approved FDA Orange Book-listed patents.

Educational Objectives:
• Understand the issues to consider when attempting to establish personal jurisdiction.
• Learn about the special issues involved when suing a foreign parent corporation in an ANDA action.
• Discover how to establish an infringement claim against an ANDA filer for Orange Book and other patents.

Who would benefit most from attending this program?
Inside and outside patent counsel involved in Hatch-Waxman litigation. Although the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing jurisdiction did not involve ANDA litigation or even patents, they significantly impact where and against whom ANDA cases can be brought.

SPEAKERS

SCOTT M. BROWN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL-PATENT LITIGATION, BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB CO.

Scott Brown is Assistant General Counsel-Patent Litigation at Bristol-Myers Squibb. He formerly served the company as Counsel, Patent Litigation, and previously worked with Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP and Pennie & Edmonds. Mr. Brown earned a J.D. from New York Law School and a B.S. in Cell/Cellular and Molecular Biology from the University of Connecticut. He is admitted to practice in New York.


PAUL A. RAGUSA, PARTNER, BAKER BOTTS LLP

Paul Ragusa is a partner in the Intellectual Property section of Baker Botts’ New York office. His practice encompasses high technology and pharmaceutical patent litigation, patent portfolio management, counseling and licensing. Mr. Ragusa’s diverse technical experience spans audiovisual compression and transmission, semiconductor device fabrication, nanotechnology, software, techniques for delivering pharmaceutical products and medical devices. He was part of the team that drafted the patent licensing agreements directed to the MPEG-2 digital video compression standard and has been involved with subsequent standards including AVC, Blu-ray and HEVC.

Mr. Ragusa earned a J.D., with high honors, from The George Washington University Law School and a B.S. in Physics, with honors, from the State University of New York at Binghamton. He is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of New York.