Case Law In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.

Document Cited Authorities (57) Cited in (38) Related

Monica L. Rebuck, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, 4400 Deer Path Road, Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17110, Maureen S. Lawrence, Barry L. Refsin [ARGUED], Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, One Logan Square, 18th & Cherry Streets, 27th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellants Rite Aid Corp., Rite Aid Hdqtrs Corp., Maxi Drug Inc., Eckerd Corp. and JCG (PJC) USA LLC

Anna T. Neill, Scott E. Perwin [ARGUED], Lauren C. Ravkind, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., 1441 Brickell Avenue, Four Seasons Tower, Suite 1100, Miami, FL 33131, Counsel for Appellants Walgreen Co., Kroger Co., Safeway Inc., Supervalu, Inc., HEB Grocery Co. LP and American Sales Co. LLC

David P. Germaine, Joseph M. Vanek, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C., 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60603, Bradley J. Demuth, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group P.C., 570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Counsel for Appellants Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution

Moira Cain–Mannix, Bernard D. Marcus, Marcus & Shapira LLP, One Oxford Centre, 35th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Counsel for Appellant Giant Eagle, Inc.

Gregory T. Arnold, Kristen A. Johnson, Kristie A. LaSalle, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro LLP, 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301, Cambridge, MA 02142, Caitlin Coslett, Eric L. Cramer, Jennifer MacNaughton, Esq., Daniel Simons, Esq., David F. Sorensen, Esq. [ARGUED], Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Elena K. Chan, Bruce E. Gerstein, Kimberly Hennings, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10005, Peter Kohn, Richard D. Schwartz, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600, Jenkintown, PA 19046, Miles Greaves, Barry S. Taus, Taus Cebulash & Landau, LLP, 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204, New York, NY 10038, Erin C. Burns, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC, 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, 404 Court Square, P.O. Box 927, Lexington, MS 39095, Counsel for Appellants Direct–Purchaser Class Plaintiffs Rochester Drug Co–Operative, Inc., et al.

James E. Cecchi [ARGUED], Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody, & Agnello, P.C., 5 Becker Farm

Road, Roseland, NJ 07068, Peter S. Pearlman, Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP, Park 80 West–Plaza One, 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401, Saddle Brook, NJ 07663, Liaison Counsel for Appellants Direct–Purchaser Class Plaintiffs Rochester Drug Co–Operative, Inc., et al.

Justin N. Boley, Bethany R. Turke, Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler Wallace LLP, 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60603, James W. Anderson, Vincent J. Esades, Renae Steiner, David Woodward, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., 310 Clifton Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55403, J. Douglas Richards, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, 88 Pine Street, 14th floor, New York, NY 10005, Michael M. Buchman, Alex Straus, Esq., Motley Rice LLC, 600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101, New York, NY 10016, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, John A. Macoretta, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, 181 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellants End–Payor Class Plaintiffs AFL–AGC Building Trades Welfare Plan, et al.

Lisa J. Rodriguez, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, Woodland Falls Corporate Park, 220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002–1165, Liaison Counsel for Appellants End–Payor Class Plaintiffs AFL–AGC Building Trades Welfare Plan, et al.

Joseph M. Alioto [ARGUED], Jamie L. Miller, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, One Sansome Street, 35th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Timothy A.C. May, Gil D. Messina, Messina Law Firm, P.C., 961 Holmdel Road, Holmdel, NJ 07733, James M. Dombroski, Law Office of James M. Dombroski, P.O. Box 751027, Petaluma, CA 94975, Counsel for Appellants RP Healthcare, Inc., et al.

Lori A. Fanning, Marvin A. Miller, Matthew E. Van Tine, Miller Law LLC, 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910, Chicago, IL 60603, Kevin P. Roddy, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900, Woodbridge, NJ 07095, Mark S. Sandmann, Hill Carter Franco Cole & Black, P.C., 99102 Brinley Avenue, Suite 201, Louisville, KY 40243, Counsel for Appellants Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund and Medical Mutual of Ohio

Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, 919 Congress Avenue, Suite 1325, Austin, TX 78701, Michael A. Carrier, Rutgers Law School, 217 North Fifth Street, Camden, NJ 08102, Counsel for 48 Law, Economics, and Business Professors and the American Antitrust Institute as Amici Curiae in support of Appellants

Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Former General Counsel, David C. Shonka, Acting General Counsel, Joel Marcus, Director of Litigation, Michele Arington, Assistant General Counsel, Deborah L. Feinstein, Director, Markus H. Meier, Acting Deputy Director, Bradley S. Albert, Deputy Assistant Director, Elizabeth R. Hilder, Heather Johnson, Jamie R. Towey, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580, Counsel for Federal Trade Commission as Amicus Curiae in support of Appellants

Dimitrios T. Drivas, Raj S. Gandesha, Bryan D. Gant, Sheryn E. George, Robert A. Milne [ARGUED], Brendan G. Woodard, Amy E. Boddorff, White & Case LLP, 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Liza M. Walsh, Connell Foley LLP, One Newark Center, 1085 Raymond Boulevard, 19th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102, Counsel for Appellees Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Warner–Lambert Company, Warner–Lambert Company LLC, Wyeth, Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wyeth–Whitehall Pharmaceuticals LLC and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Company

Jonathan D. Janow, John C. O'Quinn, Gregory L. Skidmore, Edwin J. U, Karen N. Walker, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, Jay P. Lefkowitz, [ARGUED], Joseph Serino, Jr., Steven J. Menashi, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 601 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Counsel for Appellees Ranbaxy, Inc., Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Katherine A. Helm, Noah M. Leibowitz [ARGUED], Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, 425 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, David C. Kistler, Blank Rome LLP, 301 Carnegie Center, Princeton, NJ 08540, Counsel for Appellees Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd and Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

Victor E. Schwartz, Philip S. Goldberg, Cary Silverman, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., 1155 F Street NW, Suite 200, Washington,...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2018
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2018
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig.
"... ... establishes either that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims.’ " In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 855 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Industr. Operating Corp. , 486 U.S. 800, 809, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1986) ). As such, the Court is tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's claims "arise under" patent law. Id. at 144. "[I]f on ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit – 2020
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Abbvie Inc.
"... ... & Shadowen, 1135 West 6th Street, Suite 125, Austin, TX 78703, Attorney for Amici American Antitrust Institute, Public Citizen Inc, and Public Knowledge Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER and PHIPPS, Circuit ... " associated with it is "long, comprehensive, and costly." In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig. Indirect Purchaser Class , 868 F.3d 132, 143 (3d Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). It includes "full ... antitrust law, not federal patent law, creates [the FTC's] claims." In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 855 F.3d 126, 145 (3d Cir. 2017) (emphasis omitted). So "[t]his case ... turns ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit – 2020
El v. City of Pittsburgh
"... ... In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 855 F.3d 126, 142 (3d Cir. 2017), as amended (Apr. 19, 2017) (quoting United ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit – 2017
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Intellectual Property Misuse: Licensing and Litigation. Second Edition – 2020
Practical Aspects of the Law of Misuse: Misuse in the Litigation Context
"...because the patent misuse defense was irrelevant to jurisdiction of contract claims); See also In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2017) (finding court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of two appeals of lower court dismissals of alleged pay-for-delay litigation over..."
Document | CHAPTER 13 Jurisdiction and Procedure
Chapter §13.01 U.S. District Courts
"...into question whether we have exclusive jurisdiction over all Walker Process claims in light of Gunn. In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126, 146 (3d Cir. 2017). While recognizing that Walker Process claims have been "considered by courts to present a substantial question of patent la..."
Document | Núm. 69-3, 2019
Rising Confusion About "arising Under" Jurisdiction in Patent Cases
"...882 F.3d 1075, 1078-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018).204. Xitronix, 916 F.3d at 439.205. See supra notes 179-81.206. Xitronix, 916 F.3d at 439-40. 207. 855 F.3d 126, 146 (3d Cir. 2017). Other theories included the defendants' filing of a sham citizen petition with the Food and Drug Administration and th..."
Document | Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II – 2022
Antitrust Issues Involving Intellectual Property
"...799. 585 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 2009). 800. Id. at 684. 801. Id. at 685-86. 802. 568 U.S. 251 (2013). 803. See In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2017) (noting that Gunn has left substantiality determinations “open to debate”); Westlake Servs. v. Credit Acceptance Corp..."
Document | Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II – 2022
Regulated Industries
"...holders may market authorized generics under their existing FDA approvals during that period. See, e.g., In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126, 135-36 (3d Cir. 2017); In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig., 814 F.3d 538, 543 (1st Cir. 2016); Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex, Inc., 659 F.3d 11..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Intellectual Property Misuse: Licensing and Litigation. Second Edition – 2020
Practical Aspects of the Law of Misuse: Misuse in the Litigation Context
"...because the patent misuse defense was irrelevant to jurisdiction of contract claims); See also In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2017) (finding court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of two appeals of lower court dismissals of alleged pay-for-delay litigation over..."
Document | CHAPTER 13 Jurisdiction and Procedure
Chapter §13.01 U.S. District Courts
"...into question whether we have exclusive jurisdiction over all Walker Process claims in light of Gunn. In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126, 146 (3d Cir. 2017). While recognizing that Walker Process claims have been "considered by courts to present a substantial question of patent la..."
Document | Núm. 69-3, 2019
Rising Confusion About "arising Under" Jurisdiction in Patent Cases
"...882 F.3d 1075, 1078-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018).204. Xitronix, 916 F.3d at 439.205. See supra notes 179-81.206. Xitronix, 916 F.3d at 439-40. 207. 855 F.3d 126, 146 (3d Cir. 2017). Other theories included the defendants' filing of a sham citizen petition with the Food and Drug Administration and th..."
Document | Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II – 2022
Antitrust Issues Involving Intellectual Property
"...799. 585 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 2009). 800. Id. at 684. 801. Id. at 685-86. 802. 568 U.S. 251 (2013). 803. See In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2017) (noting that Gunn has left substantiality determinations “open to debate”); Westlake Servs. v. Credit Acceptance Corp..."
Document | Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II – 2022
Regulated Industries
"...holders may market authorized generics under their existing FDA approvals during that period. See, e.g., In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126, 135-36 (3d Cir. 2017); In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig., 814 F.3d 538, 543 (1st Cir. 2016); Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex, Inc., 659 F.3d 11..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2018
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2018
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig.
"... ... establishes either that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims.’ " In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 855 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Industr. Operating Corp. , 486 U.S. 800, 809, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1986) ). As such, the Court is tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's claims "arise under" patent law. Id. at 144. "[I]f on ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit – 2020
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Abbvie Inc.
"... ... & Shadowen, 1135 West 6th Street, Suite 125, Austin, TX 78703, Attorney for Amici American Antitrust Institute, Public Citizen Inc, and Public Knowledge Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER and PHIPPS, Circuit ... " associated with it is "long, comprehensive, and costly." In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig. Indirect Purchaser Class , 868 F.3d 132, 143 (3d Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). It includes "full ... antitrust law, not federal patent law, creates [the FTC's] claims." In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 855 F.3d 126, 145 (3d Cir. 2017) (emphasis omitted). So "[t]his case ... turns ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit – 2020
El v. City of Pittsburgh
"... ... In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 855 F.3d 126, 142 (3d Cir. 2017), as amended (Apr. 19, 2017) (quoting United ... "
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit – 2017
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex