In March 2016, a Federal Circuit panel issued a decision in Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. in which it held that Mylan was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in the District of Delaware because Mylan had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA seeking approval to engage in commercial marketing activities that will be purposefully directed at Delaware (among other states).  The case received considerable attention from the pharmaceutical industry, with numerous amicus briefs submitted by third parties, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA), Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Teva Pharmaceuticals and various law professors.

In September, Mylan petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s ruling, arguing that the Federal Circuit had improperly broadened traditional notions of specific personal jurisdiction in a way that contradicted and effectively cancelled out the Supreme Court’s narrowing of general jurisdiction in its 2014 “watershed decision” in Daimler AG v. Bauman.  Mylan argued that the Federal Circuit, in effect, had authorized the filing of suits against ANDA filers in virtually any jurisdiction in which they planned to someday market their generic products.

Today, the Supreme Court denied Mylan’s petition for certiorari, thus ensuring that the Federal Circuit’s decision remains controlling precedent on specific personal jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman cases and potentially other cases involving artificial acts of infringement.