J-A08011-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
TEVA PHARAMACEUTICALS USA, INC. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
AND TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS : PENNSYLVANIA
CURACAO N.V. :
:
:
v. :
:
:
IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. : No. 2920 EDA 2017
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Dated August 23, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): February Term, 2017, No. 03632
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2018
The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit a lawyer from
representing a client when the representation will cause an actual or apparent
conflict of interest for the lawyer. One of the most easily recognized conflicts
arises when a lawyer represents a party suing a former client. If the suit is
substantially related to issues involved in representing the former client, the
lawyer may have knowledge of relevant privileged information. And where the
lawyer is found to have knowledge of such confidences, a court may disqualify
the lawyer from representing the new client.
____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08011-18
At the same time, a court should give substantial deference to a party’s
choice of counsel. Thus, where the matters are not substantially related, due
process does not require disqualification.
Here, Appellant, Impax Laboratories, Inc., seeks to disqualify the law
firm, Goodwin Procter, LLP, retained by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
(“Teva USA”) and Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao, N.V. (“Teva Curacao”)
(collectively, “Teva”) in Teva’s suit seeking contractual indemnification from
Impax. Impax contends Teva’s indemnification claim is substantially related
to prior litigation where Goodwin Procter represented Teva and Impax jointly
against claims of patent infringement.
The trial court denied Impax’s motion to disqualify. It held “there is
simply no substantial relationship between the patent case and the instant
indemnity case.” We cannot conclude the court abused its discretion, and
therefore affirm.
As an initial matter, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction
over this appeal, as Teva contends we do not.1 Our jurisdiction is typically
limited to the review of final orders. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) (“[A]n appeal may
be taken as of right from any final order….”) By definition, an order that does
not dispose of all claims as to all parties is interlocutory and not final. See
____________________________________________
1 We denied Teva’s motion to quash Impax’s appeal without prejudice to
Teva’s right to re-file the motion before the merits panel. Teva did not re-file,
but has preserved their arguments against jurisdiction in a “Counterstatement
of Jurisdiction” in their brief.
-2-
J-A08011-18
Spuglio v. Cugini, 818 A.2d 1286, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2003). The issue of
finality impacts our jurisdiction over the appeal. See In re Estate of Cella,
12 A.3d 374, 377 (Pa. Super. 2010). “[T]his Court has the power to inquire at
any time, sua sponte, whether an order is appealable.” Id. (brackets in
original; citations omitted).
It is undisputed that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final
order here. In fact, the order was entered before Teva filed its complaint.
Thus, the order did not dispose of all of Teva’s claims against Impax.
We therefore turn to the other bases upon which we have jurisdiction
over appeals. The collateral order doctrine permits appeal from certain non-
final orders. Rule 313(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure states that “[a]n
appeal may be taken as of right from a collateral order of an administrative
agency or lower court.”
To determine if an order qualifies for treatment as a Rule 313 collateral
order, we must undertake a three-step analysis. See In re Reglan
Litigation, 72 A.3d 696, 699 (Pa. Super. 2013). First, we must determine
whether the order at issue is separable from and collateral to the main cause
of action. See Crum v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC,
907 A.2d 578, 583 (Pa. Super. 2006). A separable, collateral order is one
capable of review without considering the case’s underlying merits. See id.
Here, it is clear we can review the order denying disqualification without
considering the underlying merits of Teva’s indemnification claims.
-3-
J-A08011-18
Second, the order must “involve a right that is too important to be
denied review.” In re Reglan Litigation, 72 A.3d 696, 699 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A right is deemed sufficiently
important if it represents an interest that outweighs the policy of judicial
efficiency embodied by the final order rule. See Shearer v. Hafer, 177 A.3d
850, 858-859 (Pa. 2018). Also, the interest at stake must be “deeply rooted
in public policy” and be important to more than just the present case. Id., at
859.
Impax argues Goodwin Procter has confidential information it gained
through its prior representation of Impax.2 In contrast, Teva contends
Goodwin Procter gained no relevant information from Impax during the patent
infringement case that is privileged as against Teva. Teva argues Goodwin
Procter’s joint representation of Teva and Impax was conditioned on full
access between the two parties.
We conclude Teva’s argument is ultimately an argument on the merits
of the appeal. In order to accept Teva’s argument, we must conclude there
are no confidences at stake in Goodwin Procter’s representation of Teva in the
____________________________________________
2 Impax’s initial appellate brief does not provide argument in support of our
jurisdiction. Rather, Impax invites this Court to review documents it had filed
in opposition to Teva’s motion to quash. See Appellant’s Brief, at 1 n.1. This
is improper. See Moses Taylor Hosp. v. White, 799 A.2d 802, 804 (Pa.
Super. 2002) (“When an appellant attempts to incorporate by reference issues
addressed elsewhere and fails to argue them in his brief, the issues are
waived.”). However, Impax remedies this oversight in its reply brief, and their
arguments are not waived.
-4-
J-A08011-18
current suit. Answering this question ultimately provides an answer on the
merits of Impax’s claims on appeal. Thus, Impax’s claims that confidences will
be violated by Goodwin Procter are sufficient to establish the second
requirement for interlocutory review. See Commonwealth v. Harris, 32
A.3d 243, 248-249 (Pa. 2011) (reaffirming that “claims of privilege implicate
rights rooted in public policy, and impact individuals other than those involved
in the litigation”). See also Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 65 A.3d 361,
368-369 (Pa. 2013) (reiterating the attorney-client privilege is deeply rooted
in jurisprudence).
Finally, the claim on appeal must be “such that if review is postponed
until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost.” Pa.R.A.P.
313(b). “Once putatively privileged material is in the open, the bell has been
rung, and cannot be unrung by a later appeal.” Harris, 32 A.3d at 249
(citations omitted). This appears to be the crux of Impax’s argument on
appeal: that Goodwin Procter will reveal to Teva putatively privileged
information. We therefore conclude the third requirement for interlocutory
review of a collateral order has been established.
With our jurisdiction established, we turn to the merits of Impax’s claim
that Goodwin Procter should be disqualified from representing Teva in this
case. “We employ a plenary standard of review.” Weber v. Lancaster
Newspapers, Inc., 878 A.2d 63, 80 (Pa. Super. 2005).
-5-
J-A08011-18
Teva initiated this case by filing a writ of summons. Both Teva and
Impax subsequently filed various motions with the court, including Impax’s
motion to disqualify Goodman Procter. Teva did not file its complaint until after
the court denied the motion to disqualify. Thus, the following summary of the
history of this case is gleaned from Impax’s motion to disqualify and Teva’s
responses, including the affidavit of attorney Jordan Weiss.
Impax and Teva Curacao are parties to a business agreement, otherwise
known as a Strategic Alliance Agreement (“SAA”). Under the SAA, Impax
would develop generic drugs and submit them for approval by the Food and
Drug Administration (“FDA”). As generic drugs, the products developed by
Impax could bypass certain regulatory requirements, such as clinical studies,
if studies showed the product was “bioequivalent” 3 to the already approved
brand name product. After FDA approval, the SAA provided that Teva would
market the drug.
One product developed by Impax under the SAA was bupropion
hydrochloride, 300 mg extended release tablets, also known as Budeprion XL.
Impax submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA
____________________________________________
3 Bioequivalence is a concept involving a comparison of active ingredient
concentrations, normally in the bloodstream, between the name brand and
the generic dosage forms, as a function of time after ingestion. See 21 C.F.R.
§ 314.3(b). In its draft complaint, Teva asserts that Impax sought, and
received, an FDA waiver on in vivo (a process taking place in a living organism)
testing of Budeprion XL, and instead relied upon in vitro (a process taking
place outside a living organism) dissolution testing to establish
bioequivalence.
-6-
J-A08011-18
for Budeprion XL, which, in relevant part, indicated Budeprion XL was
bioequivalent to Wellbutrin XL, a previously approved brand name formulation
of buproprion hydrochloride, 300 mg extended release tablets. Wellbutrin XL
was jointly developed by GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”) and Biovail
Laboratories, Inc. (“Biovail”).
In conformance with regulatory requirements, Impax certified that
Budeprion XL did not violate GSK and Biovail’s patents on Wellbutrin XL.
Shortly after Impax filed the ANDA, Biovail sued Impax, claiming Budeprion
XL infringed upon a Wellbutrin XL patent: U.S. Patent No. 6,096,341 (the
“Patent”). The Patent did not cover the use of buproprion hydrochloride in
treating any specific ailment. Rather, the Patent covered the extended release
design of Wellbutrin XL. Specifically, it covered the design of the tablet to
control the release of the drug from the tablet over time. See Biovail
Laboraties Intern. SRL v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., 433 F.Supp.2d 501,
512-522 (E.D. Pa. 2006).
Goodwin Procter represented Teva and Impax jointly in defending the
patent infringement claim. Ultimately, Biovail reached a settlement agreement
with Teva and Impax, as well as another company.
After the FDA subsequently approved Impax’s ANDA, Teva began selling
Budeprion XL. Sales were interrupted nearly six years later when the FDA’s
independent testing revealed Budeprion XL was not bioequivalent to
-7-
J-A08011-18
Wellbutrin XL. Impax requested the FDA withdraw its approval of the
Budeprion XL ANDA, and Teva stopped shipping the product.
GSK subsequently filed trademark infringement complaints against
Teva. GSK claimed Teva had falsely advertised Budeprion XL as bioequivalent
to Wellbutrin XL, thereby allegedly harming consumers and GSK’s business
interest in Wellbutrin XL. Teva, in turn, notified Impax of the suit, and that
Goodwin Procter would represent Teva. Teva also notified Impax that they
were reserving their right to seek indemnification from Impax under the SAA.
Impax eventually replied, denying there was any basis for
indemnification. Impax noted GSK’s claims were for false advertising. It
asserted Teva was solely responsible for advertising under the SAA, and thus
there was no basis for indemnification.
Teva ultimately settled with GSK on the false advertising claims. They
then filed this suit seeking indemnification from Impax, with Goodwin Procter
as their counsel. Impax sought to have Goodwin Procter disqualified, and the
parties filed various supporting affidavits. After receiving argument from the
parties, the court denied the motion, concluding the patent case was not
substantially related to this indemnification action.
On appeal, Impax continues to advocate for disqualification of Goodwin
Procter. Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct govern the practice of
law in the Commonwealth. However, they were not intended to create
-8-
J-A08011-18
substantive law applicable outside disciplinary proceedings. See Pa.R.P.C.,
Preamble and Scope, at ¶ 18, 19.
The Rules prohibit a lawyer from prosecuting a case against a former
client if the case is substantially related to an issue pertinent to the
representation of the former client. See Pa.R.P.C. 1.9(a). A court may
sanction an attorney who violates the Rules. See McCarthy v. Se. Pa.
Transp. Auth., 772 A.2d 987, 991 (Pa. Super. 2001). Possible sanctions
include disqualification. See id. However, “courts should not lightly interfere
with the right to counsel of one’s choice.” Weber, 878 A.2d at 80 (citation
omitted). Thus, “a court’s authority to disqualify counsel based on [the] Rules
of Professional Conduct is limited.” McCarthy, 772 A.2d at 991.
Disqualification is only proper when due process requires it. See id.
Rule 1.9 is a recognition of the common law duty lawyers owe to their
current and former clients. See Dougherty v. Philadelphia Newspapers,
LLC, 85 A.3d 1082, 1086-1087 (Pa. Super. 2014). The duty encompasses
confidentiality and avoidance of conflicts of interest. See id. As such, a
“breach of such duty is actionable.” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, a court may
disqualify an attorney whose representation constitutes a breach of the duty
of confidentiality and loyalty to a former client. See id., at 1087.
To establish grounds for disqualification, the former client must establish
three elements. First, the attorney’s current representation is adverse to the
relationship established with the former client. See id. Second, the subject
-9-
J-A08011-18
matter of the current case is substantially related to the subject matter of the
previous representation. See id. And finally, the attorney acquired knowledge
of confidential information about the prior client during the prior
representation. See id.
Here, the court concluded Impax had failed to establish the second
element. Specifically, the court found that this contract indemnification case
is not substantially related to the patent infringement case where Goodwin
represented Impax. Also, Teva contends Impax has not established the third
element, as Teva asserts none of the information gained by Goodwin during
the patent infringement case was privileged as against Teva pursuant to the
SAA.
We need not reach Teva’s claim, as we agree with the court that the
cases are not substantially related. The patent infringement case dealt with
the construction and interpretation of the Patent. For purposes of this
argument only, we assume Goodwin received confidential information from
Impax in the course of its representation of Impax in that case. We further
assume, pursuant to Impax’s claims, these confidences included scientific data
on Budeprion XL’s bioequivalency to Wellbutrin XL.
In contrast, Teva’s claims in this case deal with the construction and
interpretation of the SAA. Under the SAA, Impax warranted that Budeprion XL
met the FDA’s regulatory requirements. See SAA, § 12.1.5. Impax further
- 10 -
J-A08011-18
agreed to indemnify Teva against any claims resulting from a breach of its
warranties under the SAA. See id., at § 14.1(a).
It is undisputed the FDA required Budeprion XL be bioequivalent to
Wellbutrin XL. It is further undisputed the FDA eventually found Budeprion XL
not bioequivalent to Wellbutrin. As a result, the FDA requested Teva and
Impax withdraw Budeprion XL from the market. Both companies agreed to
withdraw the product. The only link left in the chain is to determine whether
GSK’s false advertising suits arose out of Impax’s alleged breach.
We therefore turn to the basis of GSK’s lawsuit. GSK asserted in its
complaint that “Teva’s advertising … made explicitly and necessarily implicitly
false … claims of bioequivalence … to … Wellbutrin XL.” While this claim does
not explicitly reference the FDA, or any regulatory action taken by the FDA, it
is clearly related to FDA regulatory requirements. When FDA testing indicated
Budeprion XL was not bioequivalent to Wellbutrin XL, it requested the parties
remove Budeprion XL from the market.
Impax has argued GSK’s claims focused on advertising, a duty assigned
to Teva in the SAA. While superficially correct, it is clear the claims of false
advertising are founded not upon any decision made by Teva during their
marketing campaign, but upon Budeprion XL’s lack of bioequivalency. The
absence of bioequivalence is the basis of GSK’s complaint against Teva.
Under the SAA, Impax warranted that Budeprion XL was bioequivalent
to Wellbutrin XL. Thus, Teva’s allegations are capable of establishing Impax
- 11 -
J-A08011-18
breached its warranty under § 12.1.5 of the SAA. This is the substantive issue
at the heart of Teva’s claim here.
Impax argues the development history of Budeprion XL and the data
associated with its evasion of the Patent are necessarily relevant to Teva’s
indemnification claim. We disagree.
Impax has not disputed that the FDA and other independent testing
indicated Budeprion XL was not bioequivalent. Nor has it disputed that Teva
and Impax voluntarily agreed to withdraw Budeprion XL from the market as a
result of this testing. Arguably, Budeprion XL’s non-bioequivalence to
Wellbutrin XL is now beyond dispute. However, even if Impax desired to
litigate the issue at this late date, it is not relevant to Teva’s indemnification
claim.
Teva incurred costs and damages from settling GSK’s false advertising
claim based upon GSK’s claim that Budeprion XL was not bioequivalent to
Wellbutrin XL. Even if Impax has confidential data supporting a conclusion of
bioequivalence, it is now irrelevant to the indemnification claim. Impax has
not asserted that it assisted or indemnified Teva in the GSK litigation. The only
issue to be decided in this case is a purely legal one: whether Impax was
required, under the SAA, to indemnify Teva for, and defend Teva from, the
false advertising suit.
The court correctly found Teva’s indemnification claim is not
substantially related to the patent infringement action. Any confidential
- 12 -
J-A08011-18
information Goodwin Procter may have received from Impax regarding
bioequivalence or the development history of Budeprion XL is not relevant in
this action. There is no danger that Impax will be denied due process if
Goodwin Procter continues to represent Teva in this action.
Order affirmed.
Judge Lazarus joins the memorandum.
Judge Strassburger files a concurring/dissenting memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/2/18
- 13 -