N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT IXC HEL PHAR

M A, LLC , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. B IOGEN, INC . ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 18-15258 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-00715-WB S-EFB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m B . Shubb, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

15, 2019 Subm ission W ithdra

wn July 16, 2019 R e subm itte d Se pte m

be r 16, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , IKUTA, a nd C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ixc he l Pha

rm a , LLC , a

ppe a ls thedistric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of its c la im s a ga inst B ioge n, Inc . for (1) tortious interfe re nc e with c ontra c tua l re lations, (2) inte ntiona l a

nd ne g lige nt inte rfe re nc e with prospe c t ive e c onom ic a dva nta ge , a nd 

# FIL ED SEP 17 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.(3) viola

tion of C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition La

w (UC L). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 1 W e a ffirm . Give n the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt’ s a

nswe r to our c e rtifie d que stions, the distric t c o urt c orre c tly he l d tha t for Ixc he l to sta

te a c la i m a g a i nst B ioge n for tortious interfe re nc e with c ontra c tua l re lat ions, it wa s re q uire d to a lle ge tha

t B ioge n e n ga ge d

in a n indepe nde ntly

wrongful a c t. Ix c he l Pharma, LLC v . Bioge n, Inc . , No. S256927, 2020 W L 4432623, a

t *5, 9 (C a l. August 3, 2020). Ixc he l a rgue d tha t se c tion 2.13 of B i oge n’ s c ontra c t with Forwa

rd viola te d se c t ion 16600 of the

C a lifornia B usine ss a

nd Profe ssions C ode and thus c onstitute d an indepe nde ntly

wrongful a c t. The distric t c ourt did not err in re je c ting this argum e nt. Thedistric t c o urt c orre c tly an a ly z e d se c tion 2.13 of the c ontra c t unde r a rule of re a son to de t e rm ine its va lidity , a nd c onc lude d tha

t se c tion 2.13 wa s not a

n unre a s ona

ble re stra i nt of c om

pe tition a nd the re fore did not viola te se c tion 16600. Se eIx c he l Pharma , 2020 WL 4432623, a t *18. Ixc he l did not a

rgue on a ppe a l tha t the d istric t c o urt e rre d in re a c h ing this c onc lusion.

1 W e pre viously

re j e c te d B ioge n’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t we la c k jurisdic tion under Artic le III of the U.S. C onstitution to c onside r Ixc h e l’ s c la im . Se e Ix c he l Pharma, LLC v . Bioge n , Inc . , 930 F.3d 1031, 1035 n.5 (9th Cir. 2019), c e rtified que stion answ e re d, 9 C a l. 5th 1130 (2020). 2Give n the distric t c ourt’ s holding tha t se c t ion 2.13 did not viola te se c tion 16600, Ixc h e l did not ple a d a n indepe nde ntly

wrongful a c t. Thus, the distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha

t Ixc he l fa ile d to sta

te a c la im for tortious inte

rfe re n c e with c ontra c tua l re lations, intentiona l a nd ne glige nt inte rfe re nc e with prospe c tive e c onom ic a dva

nta ge , or a

viola t ion of theUC L . AFFIRM E D.

3