Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180212_0000124.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:26:04+00:00

Document:
PERRIGO UK FINCO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND PERRIGO COMPANY, Defendants.
Presently before the court in this patent infringement action is the motion for issuance of a letter of request, filed by defendants Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. ("Actavis"), Perrigo UK Finco Limited Partnership and Perrigo Company ("Perrigo") (collectively, "defendants"), requesting international judicial assistance to take document and deposition discovery from third party MedPharm Ltd. ("MedPharm"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28 and the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the "Hague Convention"). (D.I. 182) Plaintiffs LEO Pharma A/S, LEO Laboratories Limited, and LEO Pharma, Inc. (collectively, "LEO" or "plaintiffs") oppose the motion. (D.I. 191) For the following reasons, defendants' motion for the issuance of a letter of request (D.I. 182) is granted.
LEO filed Civil Action No. 16-333-JFB-SRF on May 6, 2016, and brought Civil Action No. 16-430-JFB-SRF on June 10, 2016, alleging that defendants infringed the patents-in-suit by filing their respective ANDA applications with the FDA. (C.A. No. 16-333-JFB-SRF, D.I. 1; C.A. No. 16-430-JFB-SRF, D.I. 1) The first amended complaint in Civil Action No. 16-430-JFB-SRF, brought against Perrigo, alleges infringement of twelve patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 787, 161 ("the '161 patent), 6, 844, 013 ("the '013 patent"), 7, 410, 656 ("the '656 patent"), 8, 278, 292 ("the '292 patent"), 8, 372, 827 ("the '827 patent"), 8, 372, 828 ("the '828 patent"), 8, 377, 919 ("the '919 patent"), 8, 536, 163 ("the '163 patent"), 8, 716, 271 ("the '271 patent"), 8, 735, 375 ("the '375 patent"), 9, 416, 084 ("the '084 patent"), and 9, 676, 698 ("the '698 patent") (collectively, the "patents-in-suit"). (D.I. 99 at ¶ 13) The second amended complaint in Civil Action No. 16-333-JFB-SRF, brought against Actavis, alleges infringement of the '656 patent, the '292 patent, the '827 patent, the '828 patent, the '919 patent, the '163 patent, the '271 patent, the '375 patent, the '698 patent, and the '084 patent, but omits the '161 patent and the '013 patent. (D.I. 73 at ¶ 8) LEO is the owner of, and has the right to enforce, the patents-in-suit. (Id. at ¶ 21) The patents-in-suit fall into three groups: (1) the Aylward Patents, (2) the Brown Patents, and (3) the Process Patents.
The Hague Convention "prescribes certain procedures by which a judicial authority in one contracting nation may request evidence located in another nation." In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 358 F.3d 288, 299 (3d Cir. 2004). The Hague Convention is not mandatory and "serves as an alternative or 'permissive' route to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the taking of evidence abroad from litigants and third parties alike." Tulip Computers Int'l B. V. v. Dell Computer Corp., 254 F.Supp.2d 469, 472 (D. Del. 2003) (citing Societe Rationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 538 (1987)).
"[a] party which seeks the application of the Hague [Evidence] Convention procedures rather than the Federal Rules [of Civil Procedure] bears the burden of persuading the trial court of the necessity of proceeding pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention. That burden is not great, however, since the Convention procedures are available whenever they will facilitate the gathering of evidence by the means authorized in the Convention."
Pronova BioPharma Norge AS v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 708 F.Supp.2d 450, 452-53 (D. Del. 2010) (alterations in original) (quoting Tulip Computers Int'l, 254 F.Supp.2d at 474). "When discovery is sought from a non-party in a foreign jurisdiction, application of the Hague [Evidence] Convention, which encompasses principles of international comity, is virtually compulsory." Tulip Computers Int'l, 254 F.Supp.2d at 474 (alteration in original) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
In determining whether to utilize the Convention procedures, district courts are instructed to consider: (1) the particular facts of the case; (2) the sovereign interests involved; and (3) the likelihood that resort to the Hague Convention will prove effective. Societe Nationale, 482 U.S. at 544; see also In re Automotive Re finishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 358 F.3d at 301. Additional factors relevant to the court's decision include: "considerations of comity,  the relative interests of the parties including the interest in avoiding abusive discovery,  and the ease and efficiency of alternative formats for discovery." Tulip Computers Int'l, 254 F.Supp.2d at 474 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
A letter of request, or "letter rogatory, " from a United States judicial authority to the competent authority in a foreign state is one of three available methods of taking evidence under the Convention. See Id. at 472 (citation omitted). A letter rogatory "is the request by a domestic court to a foreign court to take evidence from a certain witness." Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott Labs., 748 F.Supp.2d 354, 358 (D. Del. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "Upon receipt of a Letter of Request, which must provide specific information regarding the lawsuit and the information sought to be discovered, the signatory state 'shall [then] apply the appropriate measure of compulsion' as is customary 'for the execution of orders issued by the authorities of its own country.'" Pronova BioPharma, 708 F.Supp.2d at 452 (alteration in original) (quoting Tulip Computers Int'l, 254 F.Supp.2d at 472).
"The person to whom the discovery requests in a Letter of Request are directed has the right to 'refuse to give evidence' to the extent that the person has a privilege under the law of the State of execution or the State of origin." Tulip Computers Int'l, 254 F.Supp.2d at 472 (citing Hague Evidence Convention, Art. 11); see also Pronova BioPharma, 708 F.Supp.2d at 454.
Prior to the 1963 amendment, Rule 28(b) said: "A commission or letters rogatory shall be issued only when necessary or convenient, on application and notice, and on such terms and with such directions as are just and appropriate." The amendment deleted the words "only when necessary or convenient" from the sentence. Although the Advisory Committee Note does not explain this change, it seems clear that the discretion trial courts formerly had in deciding whether to issue a commission or letters rogatory has been circumscribed.
Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 28(b)). The Third Circuit further explained that, "[a]lthough we do not dispute that it may be proper to refuse the issuance of... letters rogatory, there are cases in which courts have indicated that there must be some 'good reason' justifying the denial of this particular type of judicial assistance." Id. (citations omitted); see also Ethypharm S.A. France, 748 F.Supp.2d at 358 ("Courts have found 'that some good reason must be shown by the opposing party for a court to deny an application for a letter rogatory.'" (citing DBMS Consultants Ltd. v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 131 F.R.D. 367, 369 (D. Mass. 1990))).
"In entertaining a request of letter pursuant to the Hague Convention, '[t]he exact line between reasonableness and unreasonableness in each case must be drawn by the trial court, based on its knowledge of the case and of the claims and interests of the parties and the governments whose statutes and policies they invoke.'" Purdue Pharma Products L.P. v. Par Pharm., Inc., C.A. No. 07-255-JJF, 2008 WL 3926158, at *1 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2008) (quoting Societe Nationale, 482 U.S. at 546); see also Abbott Labs. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., C.A. No. 02-1512-KAJ, 2004 WL 1622427, at *3 (D. Del. July 15, 2004) (same). Furthermore, "[o]n an application for the issuance of a letter rogatory seeking a deposition in a foreign country, the Court will not ordinarily weigh the evidence to be elicited by deposition and will not determine whether the witness will be able to give the anticipated testimony." AstraZeneca v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc., 2008 WL 314627, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 11
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.