Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Novo Nordisk v Werner Amicus Brief

Novo Nordisk v Werner Amicus Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 28|Likes:
Published by Santiago Cueto
Amicus Brief addressing jurisdiction premised on state's rights to protect its consumers from foreign pharmaceutical manufacturer.
Amicus Brief addressing jurisdiction premised on state's rights to protect its consumers from foreign pharmaceutical manufacturer.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Santiago Cueto on Oct 05, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/24/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 13-214IN THE
 Supreme Court of the United States
 N
OVO
N
ORDISK 
 A/S,
Petitioner,
v.S
UZANNE
L
UKAS
-W
ERNER
and S
COTT
W
ERNER
,
Respondents.
 
On Petition for a Writ of CertiorariTo the Circuit Court of the State of OregonFor the County of Multnomah B
RIEF OF
 W 
 ASHINGTON
L
EGAL
F
OUNDATION AND
I
NTERNATIONAL
 A 
SSOCIATION OF
D
EFENSE
C
OUNSEL
 A 
S
 A 
MICI
C
URIAE IN
S
UPPORT OF
P
ETITIONER
 
Richard A. Samp(Counsel of Record)Cory L. AndrewsWashington Legal Foundation2009 Massachusetts Ave., NWWashington, DC 20036202-588-0302rsamp@wlf.orgDate: September 16, 2013
 
QUESTION PRESENTED
Oregon courts assert the right to exercisepersonal jurisdiction over Petitioner, a foreigncorporation that lacks any physical presence in theState. Oregon asserts that exercise of jurisdiction isconsistent with due process standards because anunspecified number of pharmaceuticals manufacturedby Petitioner are sold in Oregon, thereby purportedlycreating “minimum contacts” among Petitioner, theforum, and the underlying product liability lawsuit.
 Amici
address only the second of the twoQuestions Presented in the Petition:Even if Respondents can establish the requisite“minimum contacts,” is exercise of personal jurisdictionconsistent with “traditional notions of fair play andsubstantial justice” when (1) the defendant is a foreigncorporation that has delegated to an indirect subsidiaryfull responsibility for obtaining marketing approval of its prescription drugs within the United States, as wellas for all such marketing; and (2) the forum State’sinterest in protecting its consumers can be fullyvindicated by authorizing a suit against the fullysolvent subsidiary, which maintains a substantialpresence within the State?
 
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................ivINTERESTS OF
 AMICI CURIAE 
...............1STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................3SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...................6REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.....9I.Review Is Warranted to ConsiderWhether It Is Unfair to Subject a ForeignCorporation to a Court’s JurisdictionWhen Suit Against Its AmericanSubsidiary Satisfies the Interests of thePlaintiff and the Forum.................10II.Review Is Warranted to Provide Litigantswith Clearer Guidance Regarding WhenExercise of Personal Jurisdiction overDefendants with Minimum Contacts withthe Forum Nonetheless Violates DueProcess..............................18 CONCLUSION.............................21

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->