Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 42.6 kB
Pages: 2
Date: March 29, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 359 Words, 2,336 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/34559/63-1.pdf

Download Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware ( 42.6 kB)


Preview Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv-00156-Gl\/IS Document 63 Filed 03/28/2005 Page 1 of 2
isi (Yi
» s P I ta/7 "·9e<
ied " I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
*_ FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHARMASTEM THERAPEUTICS, INC., a ~
Delaware corporation,
Civil Action No.:2:04-CV-03561-RK
Plaintiff,
v.
CORCELL, INC., a Delaware corporation, L 1 5 6
MOLLY MCBRIDE, MD, an individual, and ` ·e *
CARLO M. CROCE, MD, an individual,
Defendants.
CORCELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`l
Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
l
v. ji
PHARMASTEM THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
NICHOLAS DIDIER and STEMBANC, INC., jj
Counterclaim- Defendants.
ANSWER OF PLAINTIFF PHARMASTEM THERAPEUTICS, INC. IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT McBRIDE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant McBride's Motion to Dismiss Pham1aStem`s Complaint for Patent
Infringement for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction should be denied because McBride fails to allege
any facts that would make personal jurisdiction over McBride improper. Based on the correct
reading of Federal Circuit law, this Court has specg/ic personal jurisdiction over McBride
comporting with Pennsylvania's long-arm statute and federal due process. PharmaStem's patent
infringement claim against McBride arises out of, or at the very least, relates to, McBride’s
activities in Pennsylvania. This CotIrt's jurisdiction over McBride is fair and reasonable and
McBride has offered no other considerations to find otherwise. Since the Court's exercise of
ANSWER OF PHARMASTSM IN SUPPORT Or ITS OPPOSITION TO MCBRlDE'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 1:05-cv-00156-Gl\/IS Document 63 Filed 03/28/2005 Page 2 of 2
WI!}
specific personal jurisdiction over McBride does not offend federal due process, McBride's
Motion should be denied.
Further grounds in support of this Answer are set forth in the accompanying
Memorandum of Law and Exhibit l thereto, which are incorporated by reference herein.
DATED: October 7, 2004 By:
Michael D. LiPuma, Atty. l.D. #74790
Law Office of Michael LiPuma
Two Penn Center, Suite 200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc.
OF COUNSEL:
PAUL J. ANDRE, Bar No. 196585
LISA KOBIALKA, Bar N0. 191404
PERKINS COIE LLP
101 Jefferson Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1 l I4
Telephone: (650) 838-4300
Facsimile: (650) 838-4350
10070-4/1602318[answer to rncbride motto d¤smiss.DOC]
2