Seagen Inc v. Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedFebruary 13, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-01613
StatusUnknown

This text of Seagen Inc v. Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd (Seagen Inc v. Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Seagen Inc v. Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 SEAGEN INC., CASE NO. C22-1613JLR 11 Petitioner, MINUTE ORDER v. 12 DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD., 13 Respondent. 14

15 The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable 16 James L. Robart: 17 Before the court is Petitioner Seagen Inc.’s (“Seagen”) petition to vacate the award 18 (the “Award”) entered into in the arbitration between Seagen and Respondent Daiichi 19 Sankyo Co., Ltd. (“DSC”). (See generally Pet. (Dkt. # 1); Mem. (Dkt. ## 11 (sealed), 55 20 (redacted)).) In its petition, Seagen states that although the Award is labeled as an 21 “Interim Award,” it “is fully and finally dispositive with respect to all factual issues, legal 22 and equitable arguments, and defenses raised in conjunction with the Parties’ claims and 1 requests for relief, with the sole exception of the Parties’ respective requests for an award 2 of, inter alia, attorneys’ fees.” (Pet. ¶ 6 (quoting Award (Dkt. # 13-2 (sealed)) at 20).)

3 Similarly, DSC argues in its opposition that the Award has the requisite finality for the 4 purpose of judicial review because the Award “is fully and finally dispositive” as to all of 5 Seagen’s claims and “the arbitrator’s determination of attorney fees is easily severable 6 and distinct.” (Resp. (Dkt. # 59) at 6-7 (first quoting Award at 20; and then quoting 7 Hyosung (America) Inc. v. Tranax Tech. Inc., Case. No. C 10-0793 VRW, 2010 WL 8 1853764, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2010)).)

9 In response to DSC’s argument that Seagen failed to timely serve its petition 10 (Resp. at 20-21), however, Seagen argues that because the Award is not final under the 11 Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), the three-month period in which a party must serve a 12 motion to vacate has not yet started. (Reply (Dkt. # 63) at 9-10.) To support its position 13 that the Award is not final, Seagen relies on the Arbitrator’s statement in his December

14 19, 2022 order that “no Final Award has been issued in this arbitration pursuant AAA 15 Rule R-47(b), and thus, Seagen’s pending petition to vacate the Interim Award appears to 16 be interlocutory.” (Id. (quoting Arb. 12/19/22 Order (Dkt. # 50), Ex. A at 3).) 17 “Under the FAA, courts may review final arbitration awards; however, no 18 interlocutory review is intended of interim awards.” In re Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., No.

19 CV-08-1211 CW, 2008 WL 2004275, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2008); see 9 U.S.C. § 1 et 20 seq.; Millmen Local 550, United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., AFL–CIO v. 21 Wells Exterior Trim, 828 F.2d 1373, 1375-77 (9th Cir. 1987); New United Motor Mfg., 22 Inc. v. United Auto Workers Loc. 2244, 617 F. Supp. 2d 948, 954-59 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 1 “[B]ecause of the Congressional policy favoring arbitration when agreed to by the 2 parties, judicial review of non-final arbitration awards ‘should be indulged, if at all, only

3 in the most extreme cases.’” Pac. Reinsurance Mgmt. Corp. v. Ohio Reinsurance Corp., 4 935 F.2d 1019, 1022 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Aerojet-General Corp. v. Am. Arbitration 5 Ass’n, 478 F.2d 248, 251 (9th Cir. 1973)). 6 Accordingly, the court ORDERS Seagen to file supplemental briefing regarding 7 why its petition to vacate the Award is ripe for judicial review in light of the 8 abovementioned legal principles and Seagen’s contention that the Award is non-final

9 under the FAA. Seagen’s supplemental briefing must be filed no later than February 17, 10 2023, and may not exceed 1,400 words. The court further ORDERS DSC to respond to 11 Seagen’s supplemental briefing no later than February 22, 2023. DSC’s brief may not 12 exceed 1,050 words. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to renote Seagen’s petition to vacate 13 (Dkt. # 1) for February 22, 2023.

14 Filed and entered this 13th day of February, 2023. 15 RAVI SUBRAMANIAN Clerk of Court 16 s/ Ashleigh Drecktrah 17 Deputy Clerk

18 19 20 21 22

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Seagen Inc v. Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seagen-inc-v-daiichi-sankyo-co-ltd-wawd-2023.