Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IXCHEL PHARMA, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BIOGEN, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-15258
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-00715-WBS-EFB
MEMORANDUM
*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 15, 2019
Submission Withdrawn July 16, 2019
Resubmitted September 16, 2020
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ixchel Pharma, LLC, appeals the district court’s dismissal of its claims
against Biogen, Inc. for (1) tortious interference with contractual relations, (2)
intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and
FILED
SEP 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

(3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
1
We affirm.
Given the California Supreme Court’s answer to our certified questions, the
district court correctly held that for Ixchel to state a claim against Biogen for
tortious interference with contractual relations, it was required to allege that
Biogen engaged in an independently wrongful act. Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen,
Inc., No. S256927, 2020 WL 4432623, at *5, 9 (Cal. August 3, 2020).
Ixchel argued that section 2.13 of Biogen’s contract with Forward violated
section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code and thus constituted
an independently wrongful act. The district court did not err in rejecting this
argument. The district court correctly analyzed section 2.13 of the contract under a
rule of reason to determine its validity, and concluded that section 2.13 was not an
unreasonable restraint of competition and therefore did not violate section 16600.
See Ixchel Pharma, 2020 WL 4432623, at *18. Ixchel did not argue on appeal that
the district court erred in reaching this conclusion.
1
We previously rejected Biogen’s argument that we lack jurisdiction under
Article III of the U.S. Constitution to consider Ixchel’s claim. See Ixchel Pharma,
LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 930 F.3d 1031, 1035 n.5 (9th Cir. 2019), certified question
answered, 9 Cal. 5th 1130 (2020).
2

Given the district court’s holding that section 2.13 did not violate section
16600, Ixchel did not plead an independently wrongful act. Thus, the district court
did not err in holding that Ixchel failed to state a claim for tortious interference
with contractual relations, intentional and negligent interference with prospective
economic advantage, or a violation of the UCL.
AFFIRMED.
3