MEMORANDUM ORDER

LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.

WHEREAS, presently before the court is Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s ("Mylan") Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (D.I. 12),1 on which the parties finished briefing on June 22, 2015 (D.I. 13, 21, 24), as well as Mylan's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (C.A. No. 15-1162 D.I. 9)2 in a related action which was consolidated with the above-captioned action on March 10, 2016 (see D.I. 50);

WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the parties' recently-filed letters regarding how to proceed with the Motions to Dismiss (D.I. 54, 55, 58, 59) and finds that they are ripe for decision, notwithstanding the parties' stipulation to "suspend" them (D.I. 46) and notwithstanding Mylan's argument to the contrary (see, e.g., D.I. 58 at 2);3

WHEREAS, on January 14, 2015, the Court rejected Mylan's arguments regarding substantially the same issues of law and fact as those at issue in the pending Motions to Dismiss in Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 78 F.Supp.3d 572 (D. Del. 2015), finding that Mylan is subject to the specific and general personal jurisdiction of Delaware courts;

WHEREAS, on February 3, 2016, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order which suspended further briefing and argument on the Motions to Dismiss pending receipt of "Federal Circuit guidance in pending appeals relating to personal jurisdiction in this district" — that is, pending the Federal Circuit's decision in an interlocutory appeal from this Court's Acorda decision (and/or an interlocutory appeal from the decision of Judge Sleet of this Court in AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 72 F. Supp. 3d (D. Del. 2014) ("AstraZeneca")) (see D.I. 46);

WHEREAS, on March 18, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in the appeals of Acorda and AstraZeneca, affirming this Court's finding of specific jurisdiction over Mylan, see Acorda Therapeutics Inc v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 2016 WL 1077048 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2016) ("Acorda Appeal");

WHEREAS, the Court concludes here that it may exercise specific jurisdiction over Mylan, for the reasons stated by the Federal Circuit in the Acorda Appeal;

WHEREAS, the Court further concludes once again that it may exercise general jurisdiction over Mylan, for the reasons stated by this Court in Acorda, as general jurisdiction was an independent ground for finding personal jurisdiction over Mylan in Acorda that was not disturbed by the Federal Circuit in the Acorda Appeal;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mylan's Motions to Dismiss (D.I. 12; C.A. 15-1162, D.I. 9) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew should the en bane Federal Circuit or Supreme Court materially change the law from what the Federal Circuit panel has held in the Acorda Appeal. (See D.I. 59 at 1)