Glaxo Group, Ltd. v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Glaxo Group, Ltd. v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

381 F. Supp. 2d 1378

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedAugust 9, 2005

DocketNo. 1701

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 381 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (Glaxo Group, Ltd. v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glaxo Group, Ltd. v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 381 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (jpml 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two now consolidated Southern District of New York actions and one District of Delaware action. Each MDL-1701 action is brought by patent owner Glaxo Group Ltd. (Glaxo) for infringement of a Glaxo patent that claims sumatriptan succinate, the active ingredient in Glaxo’s Imitrex® products, which are prescribed for treatment of migraine. Plaintiff Glaxo moves for centralization of these actions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, in the Southern District of New York. Responses in opposition to transfer have been filed by i) the two affiliated defendants in the first filed New York action, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., and ii) the defendant in the Delaware action, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation, which essentially involves only two actions pending in two districts. Movant has failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket in which the consoli[1379]*1379dated New York action has been pending for almost two years. Alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever remaining possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978). See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these actions is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two now consolidated Southern District of New York actions and one District of Delaware action. Each MDL-1701 action is brought by patent owner Glaxo Group Ltd. (Glaxo) for infringement of a Glaxo patent that claims sumatriptan succinate, the active ingredient in Glaxo’s Imitrex® products, which are prescribed for treatment of migraine. Plaintiff Glaxo moves for centralization of these actions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, in the Southern District of New York. Responses in opposition to transfer have been filed by i) the two affiliated defendants in the first filed New York action, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., and ii) the defendant in the Delaware action, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation, which essentially involves only two actions pending in two districts. Movant has failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket in which the consoli[1379]*1379dated New York action has been pending for almost two years. Alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever remaining possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978). See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these actions is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 F. Supp. 2d 1378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glaxo-group-ltd-v-spectrum-pharmaceuticals-inc-jpml-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack