Daimler Does Not Preclude General Jurisdiction Based on Compliance With Delaware’s Business Registration Requirement

Reaching a different conclusion than Judge Sleet, Judge Stark denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's ANDA infringement action against a parent defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction and rejected the argument that Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) precluded the court's the exercise of general jurisdiction over this, "and likely all," ANDA suits. "While Daimler altered the analysis with respect to general jurisdiction - and the Court agrees with [defendant] that this Court cannot exercise general personal jurisdiction over either of the [defendants] on the basis that they are 'at home' in Delaware - Daimler does not change the fact that [the subsidiary defendant] consented to this Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction when it registered to do business and appointed an agent for service of process in the State of Delaware. . . . With respect to [the parent defendant], the Court lacks general jurisdiction, as [it] is neither 'at home' nor registered to do business in Delaware. However, Plaintiffs allege but have not proven a non-frivolous claim that [the parent] used [the subsidiary] as its agent in connection with the ANDA filing giving rise to this litigation. Therefore, the Court will permit Plaintiffs to take jurisdictional discovery of [the parent's] relationship with [the subsidiary] and with the ANDA filing at issue in this case. . . . The undersigned Judge is aware, of course, that a fellow member of this Court has reached a contrary conclusion on this point. . . . Judge Sleet's rejection of consent as a basis for general jurisdiction over [defendant] is well-reasoned and may well be the correct view. Nevertheless, for the reasons explained in this Opinion, the undersigned Judge has reached a different conclusion."

Acorda Therapeutics Inc. et al v. Mylan Inc. et al, 1-14-cv-00935 (DED January 14, 2015, Order) (Stark, J.)