## Facts

- United Kingdom residents brought multiple consolidated actions alleging injury or death from oral contraceptives (including Ovran-30, Ovran, and Ovranette) purchased and used in the United Kingdom.
- Plaintiffs sued a pharmaceutical division of an American corporation alleged to have its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, asserting negligence and failure to warn.
- Plaintiffs alleged the relevant wrongful conduct occurred in Pennsylvania through development, testing, manufacturing arrangements, marketing decisions, and placement of the drugs into commerce without adequate warnings.
- The defendant asserted that a U.K. subsidiary manufactured, packaged, labeled, and distributed the contraceptives in the United Kingdom and Ireland, under sublicenses and royalty arrangements.
- Plaintiffs’ use of the drugs, medical treatment, injuries, and most fact witnesses and documents were located in the United Kingdom.
- The defendant moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing the United Kingdom was the appropriate forum; the court dismissed on conditions and later reaffirmed the dismissal after plaintiffs sought relief.

## Issues

1. Whether, under forum non conveniens, actions by U.K. plaintiffs alleging injuries from contraceptives purchased, regulated, and used in the United Kingdom should be dismissed in favor of litigation in U.K. courts.
2. Whether the United Kingdom constituted an available and adequate alternative forum, and what conditions were required to prevent undue prejudice to plaintiffs.

## Decision

- The court granted dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of litigation in the United Kingdom.
- The court held that both private-interest factors (access to proof, witnesses, and compulsory process) and public-interest factors (local interest, regulatory context, and burden on the forum) favored a U.K. forum.
- The dismissal was conditioned on the defendant’s agreement to submit to U.K. jurisdiction and to cooperate in making evidence and witnesses within its control available.
- The court denied plaintiffs’ later motion for relief from the dismissal and reaffirmed the conditional forum non conveniens dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Forum non conveniens permits dismissal when an alternative forum is available and adequate, and the balance of private and public interest factors strongly favors the alternative forum.
- When plaintiffs are foreign, and injury, product use, and key evidence are predominantly abroad, a U.S. forum is entitled to less deference and dismissal is more likely.
- Public-interest factors include the forum’s connection to the controversy, the appropriateness of applying the affected community’s regulatory standards, and avoiding jury and administrative burdens for disputes with predominantly foreign elements.
- Conditional dismissal may be used to ensure fairness by requiring the defendant to submit to the alternative forum’s jurisdiction and to facilitate access to evidence.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that litigation over contraceptives manufactured, labeled, regulated, sold, and used in the United Kingdom—brought by U.K. residents for U.K. injuries—should proceed, if at all, in U.K. courts, and dismissed the U.S. actions on forum non conveniens subject to protective conditions.


Harrison v. Wyeth Lab'ys Div. of Am. Home Prods. Corp., 510 F. Supp. 1 (E.D. Pa. 1980)