UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________

No. 25-1407 ________________

In re: Application of Amgen Inc. for Assistance Before a Foreign Tribunal

CELLTRION USA, INC., Appellant

________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 1:24-cv-09052) District Judge: Honorable Christine P. O’Hearn ________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal on April 25, 2025

Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 5, 2025)

Jonathan Y. Ellis Corinne S. Hockman McGuireWoods LLP 501 Fayetteville Street Suite 500 Raleigh, NC 27601 Grace Anne J. Simmons McGuireWoods LLP 888 16th Street NW Black Lives Matter Plaza, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006

Counsel for Appellant Joshua J. Fougere Jillian S. Stonecipher Madeleine V. Joseph Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Steven J. Horowitz Sidley Austin LLP One S Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Siegmund Y. Gutman Chelsea Ostrer Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. 2049 Century Park E Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067

Counsel for Appellee

2 ________________

OPINION OF THE COURT ________________ PER CURIAM

Federal courts are often called on by parties to foreign litigation to facilitate discovery in the United States in aid of a foreign proceeding. And federal law licenses these efforts by authorizing district courts to order a person “to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). We consider here whether an order entered under § 1782 is “final,” such that it may be appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, when a district court has determined that discovery is appropriate under § 1782 but has not yet conclusively defined the scope of that discovery. Because we conclude such an order is not final, and, thus, we lack appellate jurisdiction to review it, we will dismiss this appeal. I. Background

Appellee Amgen Inc. is a biotechnology company that holds patents in both the United States and South Korea for drug products containing, and manufacturing processes involved in the production of, denosumab, the active ingredient in biologic medications for certain bone cancers and tumors. Amgen and an affiliate filed patent infringement suits in both countries against Celltrion Inc. (Celltrion Korea), a South Korean biotechnology company. Amgen seeks information it believes is material to these suits from Celltrion Korea’s

3 subsidiary, Celltrion USA, which is headquartered in New Jersey.1

After initiating its action in South Korea, Amgen filed an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to subpoena Celltrion USA for eighty-two categories of documents and testimony involving Celltrion Korea’s denosumab products. Section 1782 permits district courts to order discovery “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,” provided that the applicant shows the target of the discovery “resides or is found” in the relevant district. 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). The application was initially assigned to a magistrate judge and was opposed by Celltrion USA, which contended that, as a threshold matter, § 1782 cannot be used to compel it to produce information that resides outside the District of New Jersey with its foreign parent company. It also objected on the basis that the information sought is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241,