United States District Court, D. New Jersey
INDIVIOR INC. and INDIVIOR UK LTD., Plaintiffs,
DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A., and DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants. INDIVIOR INC. and INDIVIOR UK LTD., Plaintiffs,
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant. INDIVIOR INC. and INDIVIOR UK LTD., Plaintiffs,
ALVOGEN PINE BROOK, INC., Defendant. .
MCNULTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is the Report and Recommendation
("R&R") (ECF no. 50, Civ. No. 17-7106; ECF no.
50, Civ. No. 17-7115; ECF no. 118, Civ. No. 17-7111) of
Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor. Judge Waldor recommends
that I deny the motions of defendants, Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.
(collectively, "DRL"), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc. ("Teva"), and Alvogen Pine Brook, Inc.
("Alvogen") (collectively, "Defendants")
to transfer venue of this case to the District of Delaware
under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons set forth below,
the R&R is adopted and affirmed as to these defendants,
and their motions to transfer are denied.
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
As to a
Magistrate Judge's order regarding a non-dispositive
matter, the district court "must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Equal
Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. City of Long
Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting
Cont'l Cos. Co. v. Dominick D'Andrea, Inc., 150
F.3d 245, 250 (3d Cir. 1998); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)).
The district court will review findings of fact for clear
error and to review matters of law de novo. Id.
As to a
dispositive matter referred to the Magistrate Judge for
decision, however, the district court's review is
The product of a magistrate judge, following a referral of a
dispositive matter, is often called a "report and
recommendation." Parties "may serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations" within 14 days of being served with a
copy of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). If a party objects timely to a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the
district court must "make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d at 99-100.
decisions in this District have treated Magistrate
Judges' decisions on motions to transfer venue as
non-dispositive. See Allyn 2. Lite, N. J. Fed. Prac.
R. Loc. R. 72.1a, comment 3, at p. 419 (2018 ed.) (citing,
e.g., Siemens Financial Services v. Open Advantage,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15623 (D.N.J. Feb. 29, 2008) (Hayden,
J.)). Others have treated them as dispositive. See Cuco
v. United States, 2007 WL 2904193 (Oct. 2, 2007)
(Chesler, J.) (treating motion to transfer as dispositive and
reviewing R&R de novo); Oliver v. Third Wave
Technologies, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70915 (D.N.J. Sept.
24, 2007) (Linares, J.). As to this issue, there has been no
definitive holding by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. But cf. In re U.S. Healthcare, 159 F.3d
142, 145 (3d Cir. 1998) (Magistrate Judge order remanding
case to state court is dispositive).
particular matter presents itself in the form of a report and
recommendation, implying and signaling to the parties that it
has been treated as a dispositive ruling. Therefore, in an
abundance of caution, I will treat it as such, and review it
end, however, the standard of review makes litde difference,
because I find myself in agreement with Judge Waldor's
well-reasoned R&R. Having exercised de novo
review, I adopt and affirm the R&R, adding some
procedural history, a summary of the R&R, and a few
additional observations that address the objections made by
only update of note to the procedural history is my
disposition of the motion of Indivior Inc., Indivior UK
Limited, and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively,
"Plaintiffs") for a preliminary injunction against
DRL. On July 13, 2018, after a hearing on the issue, I
granted the motion for a preliminary injunction, barring DRL
from manufacturing, importing, or selling a generic version
of Suboxone in the United States. (ECF nos. 122, 136, Civ.
No. 17-7111.) DRL has appealed this preliminary injunction to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; that
appeal is pending (Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories, S.A., 18-2167). (ECF nos. 137, 139, Civ.
essential claim is that Alvogen, Teva, and DRL are
manufacturing, marketing, and selling a generic product that
infringes the patents at issue. They argue that the District
of New Jersey is the proper venue for these patent
infringement cases, Alvogen, Teva, and DRL moved to transfer
venue to the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a). There is a history of litigation over
plaintiffs' patents for sublingual films in front of
District Judge Richard G. Andrews in the District of
Delaware. In 2014, plaintiffs pursued several patent
infringement actions against DRL (as well as other defendants
not parties to this case) in the District of Delaware,
alleging similar infringement. The patents at issue in
Delaware were similar to, and one is a parent patent to, the
patents at issue in this case. Judge Andrews made two rulings
in favor of DRL: the first on collateral estoppel grounds and
the second on the grounds that the patent was valid but that
DRL did not infringe it.
Waldor recommended denying the motions to transfer venue.
(R&R at 16.)
she found that venue is permissible as to DRL in the District
of New Jersey under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(b), which states that a "civil action for
patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district
where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has
committed acts of infringement and has a regular and
established place of business." (Id. at 7.) The
Supreme Court has explained that, for patent cases, a
domestic corporation "resides" only in its state of
incorporation and where it has a regular and established
place of business, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Grp.
Brands LLC,137 S.Ct. 1514, 1517 (2017). Judge Waldor