Case Law In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.

Document Cited Authorities (57) Cited in (74) Related (2)

868 F.3d 231

IN RE: LIPITOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs Corporation; JCG (PJC) USA, LLC ; Maxi Drug, Inc. d/b/a Brooks Pharmacy; Eckerd Corporation, Appellants in No. 14-4202

Walgreen Company; The Kroger Company; Safeway, Inc.; Supervalu, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P., Appellants in No. 14-4203

Giant Eagle, Inc., Appellant in No. 14-4204

Meijer Inc.; Meijer Distribution, Inc., Appellants in No. 14-4205

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. ; Stephen L. Lafrance Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a Saj Distributors; Burlington Drug Company, Inc. ; Value Drug Company; Professional Drug Company, Inc. ; American Sales Company LLC, Appellants in No. 14-4206

A.F.L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan; Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland; New Mexico United Food and Commercial Workers Union's and Employers' Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company, d/b/a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana; Bakers Local 433Health Fund ; Twin Cities Bakery Workers Health and Welfare Fund; Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98; New York Hotel Trades Counsel & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc., Health Benefits Fund; Edward Czarnecki ; Emilie Heinle; Frank Palter; Andrew Livezey; Edward Ellenson; Jean Ellyne Dougan; Nancy Billington, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants in No. 14-4602

In re: Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation

Walgreen, Co.; The Kroger, Co.; Safeway, Inc.; Supervalu, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company LP; American Sales Company, Inc., Appellants in No. 15-1184

Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs., Corporation; JCG (PJC) USA, LLC ; Maxi Drug, Inc. d/b/a Brooks Pharmacy; Eckerd Corporation; CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants in No. 15-1185

Giant Eagle, Inc., Appellant in No. 15-1186

Meijer, Inc.; Meijer Distribution, Inc., Appellants in No. 15-1187

Professional Drug Company, Inc. ; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. ; Stephen L. Lafrance Holdings, Inc.; Stephen L. Lafrance Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a Saj Distributors; Uniondale Chemist, Inc., Appellants in No. 15-1274

Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund ; Medical Mutual of Ohio, Appellants in No. 15-1323

A.F. of L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan; Daryl Deino; IBEW-NECA Local 505 Health & Welfare Plan ; Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana; Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund ; MC-UA Local 119 Health & Welfare Plan ; New Mexico United Food and Commercial Workers Union's and Employers' Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 572 Health and Welfare Fund; Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund; Patricia Sutter (Together "End-payor Class Plaintiffs") on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants in No. 15-1342

Nos. 14-4202

14-4203

14-4204

14-4205

14-4206

& 14-4602

Nos. 15-1184

15-1185

15-1186

15-1187

15-1274

15-1323 & 15-1342

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued May 19, 2017

Filed: August 21, 2017

Monica L. Kiley, 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, Moira Cain-Mannix, Bernard D. Marcus, Erin G. Allen, Marcus & Shapira LLP, One Oxford Centre, 35th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Counsel for Appellant Giant Eagle, Inc.

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

Gregory T. Arnold, Kristen A. Johnson, Kristie A. LaSalle, Thomas M. Sobol [ARGUED], Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro LLP, 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301, Cambridge, MA 02142, Caitlin Coslett, Eric L. Cramer, Jennifer MacNaughton, Daniel Simons, David F. Sorensen [ARGUED], Richard D. Schwartz, Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Elena K. Chan, Bruce E. Gerstein [ARGUED], 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 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60603, James W. Anderson, Vincent J. Esades, Renae Steiner, David R. Woodward [ARGUED], 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, 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, 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, Eleonore Ofosu-Antwi, Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly & Falanga, One Riverfront Plaza, 1037 Raymond Boulevard, 6th 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, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, 425 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Victor E. Schwartz, Philip S. Goldberg, Cary Silverman, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., 1155 F Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20004, Counsel for American Tort Reform Association and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America as Amici Curiae in support of Appellees

Jonathan D. Hacker, Edward Hassi, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 1625 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for Antitrust Economists as Amici Curiae in support of Appellees

Ashley Bass, Stephen Bartenstein, Andrew D. Lazerow, Covington & Burling LLP, 850 10th Street, N.W., One City Center, Washington, D.C. 20001, Counsel for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America as ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California – 2021
In re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litig.
"... ... Moreover, trial on Xyrem's 555 F.Supp.3d 854 remaining patents was "weeks away." CAC ¶ 209. Thus, Hikma could either launch (A) after potentially prevailing at trial; or (B) before a final litigation outcome. See generally, e.g., In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 868 F.3d 231, 241 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing generic manufacturer's option to launch "at risk" during ongoing litigation). Either way, Hikma's "manufacture, market[ing], and s[ale] of an AB-rated generic version of Xyrem" did not seem far off. CAC ¶ 126. An alleged chain of ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas – 2021
In re Epipen
"... ... F.Supp.3d 922 IN RE: EPIPEN (EPINEPHRINE INJECTION, USP) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION (This Document Applies to Consumer Class Cases) MDL No: 2785 Case No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ ... See Transfer Order at Schedule A, In re: Armodafinil Patent Litig. , No. 1:10-md-02200 (D. Del. Dec. 8, 2010), ECF No. 1. In December 2010, the Judicial Panel on ... See, e.g. , In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 868 F.3d 231, 258 (3d Cir. 2017) (holding that settlement agreement was ... "
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. District Court — Northern District of Illinois – 2020
In re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litig.
"... ... Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. , 74 F.Supp.3d 1052, 1067–68 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (recognizing that agreements that increase competition fall outside the scope of Actavis ). 18 In both King Drug, and In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , the Third Circuit acknowledged 465 F.Supp.3d 842 that it might not be appropriate to justify anticompetitive effects in one market with procompetitive effects in another. King Drug , 791 F.3d at 409 n.34 ; In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 868 F.3d 231, 256 n.12 (3d Cir ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2018
In re Remicade Antitrust Litig.
"... ... v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp. , 382 U.S. 172, 86 S.Ct. 347, 15 L.Ed.2d 247 (1965) standard, under which "[f]raudulent procurement of a patent ... can provide the basis for antitrust liability" such as monopolization of a relevant market. In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 868 F.3d 231, 266 (3d Cir. 2017). A plaintiff alleging fraud must "state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). See United States ex ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Antitrust Issues in Intellectual Property Law. Second edition – 2024
Antitrust Issues in ANDA and Biosimilars Litigation
"...and the royalties Teva would pay to Wyeth during those eleven months.” Id. at *22. 337. Id. at *23. 338. In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017) (consolidated appeals). 339. In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litig. , 2014 WL 4988410, at *20. van53858_complete.indb 243 van53858_..."
Document | Antitrust Issues in Intellectual Property Law. Second edition – 2024
Appendix B. Topical Index of Cases
"...2015); In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litig. , No. CIV.A. 11-5479 PGS, 2014 WL 4988410 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2014); In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017); Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 566 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544 (2007); In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust L..."
Document | Antitrust Issues in Intellectual Property Law. Second edition – 2024
Appendix C. Table of Authorities
"...F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2016), 257 In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 523 (D.N.J. 2014), 244, 261 In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017), 243, 245 In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., No. 12-cv-2389, 2013 WL 4780496 (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2013), 29–31, 120 In re Loestrin 24 ..."
Document | The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. Third Edition – 2022
What encompasses petitioning?
"...antitrust scrutiny. 146 A number of other courts have similarly held that 141. Id. 142. 263 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2001). 143. Id. at 239. 144. 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017). 145. Id . at 264. 146. Id . at 265. The court also noted that accepting defendants’ argument “would have the practical effe..."
Document | Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II – 2022
Antitrust Issues Involving Intellectual Property
"...on judicial determinations in prior litigation and (2) the PTO’s reissuance of the patent was improper. In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231, 267-71 (3d Cir. 2017). 67. 141 F.3d 1059, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 68. Id. at 1068. Nobelpharma expressly overruled the Federal Circuit’s prior..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
2 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Developments in Global Securities Litigation
"...(Austl.). 287 See Multiplex Funds Mgmt Ltd v P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd, [2007] 164 FCR 275 (Austl.). 288 Money Max Int. Pty Ltd (Trustee) v QBE Ins Grp Ltd, [2016] FCAFC 148 (Austl.). 289 Kevin LaCroix, Class Action Litigation in Australia Poised for Further Growth, D&O Diary (Dec. 14, ..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2020
Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie Inc. (3d Cir. 2020)
"...generic), In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig. Indirect Purchaser Class, 868 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2017), and In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017) (settling a related claim for much less than it was objectively worth on one drug and a "no authorized generic" agreement on ..."

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 | Antitrust Issues in Intellectual Property Law. Second edition – 2024
Antitrust Issues in ANDA and Biosimilars Litigation
"...and the royalties Teva would pay to Wyeth during those eleven months.” Id. at *22. 337. Id. at *23. 338. In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017) (consolidated appeals). 339. In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litig. , 2014 WL 4988410, at *20. van53858_complete.indb 243 van53858_..."
Document | Antitrust Issues in Intellectual Property Law. Second edition – 2024
Appendix B. Topical Index of Cases
"...2015); In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litig. , No. CIV.A. 11-5479 PGS, 2014 WL 4988410 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2014); In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017); Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 566 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544 (2007); In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust L..."
Document | Antitrust Issues in Intellectual Property Law. Second edition – 2024
Appendix C. Table of Authorities
"...F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2016), 257 In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 523 (D.N.J. 2014), 244, 261 In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017), 243, 245 In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., No. 12-cv-2389, 2013 WL 4780496 (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2013), 29–31, 120 In re Loestrin 24 ..."
Document | The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. Third Edition – 2022
What encompasses petitioning?
"...antitrust scrutiny. 146 A number of other courts have similarly held that 141. Id. 142. 263 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2001). 143. Id. at 239. 144. 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017). 145. Id . at 264. 146. Id . at 265. The court also noted that accepting defendants’ argument “would have the practical effe..."
Document | Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II – 2022
Antitrust Issues Involving Intellectual Property
"...on judicial determinations in prior litigation and (2) the PTO’s reissuance of the patent was improper. In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231, 267-71 (3d Cir. 2017). 67. 141 F.3d 1059, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 68. Id. at 1068. Nobelpharma expressly overruled the Federal Circuit’s prior..."

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 — Northern District of California – 2021
In re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litig.
"... ... Moreover, trial on Xyrem's 555 F.Supp.3d 854 remaining patents was "weeks away." CAC ¶ 209. Thus, Hikma could either launch (A) after potentially prevailing at trial; or (B) before a final litigation outcome. See generally, e.g., In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 868 F.3d 231, 241 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing generic manufacturer's option to launch "at risk" during ongoing litigation). Either way, Hikma's "manufacture, market[ing], and s[ale] of an AB-rated generic version of Xyrem" did not seem far off. CAC ¶ 126. An alleged chain of ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas – 2021
In re Epipen
"... ... F.Supp.3d 922 IN RE: EPIPEN (EPINEPHRINE INJECTION, USP) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION (This Document Applies to Consumer Class Cases) MDL No: 2785 Case No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ ... See Transfer Order at Schedule A, In re: Armodafinil Patent Litig. , No. 1:10-md-02200 (D. Del. Dec. 8, 2010), ECF No. 1. In December 2010, the Judicial Panel on ... See, e.g. , In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 868 F.3d 231, 258 (3d Cir. 2017) (holding that settlement agreement was ... "
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. District Court — Northern District of Illinois – 2020
In re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litig.
"... ... Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. , 74 F.Supp.3d 1052, 1067–68 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (recognizing that agreements that increase competition fall outside the scope of Actavis ). 18 In both King Drug, and In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , the Third Circuit acknowledged 465 F.Supp.3d 842 that it might not be appropriate to justify anticompetitive effects in one market with procompetitive effects in another. King Drug , 791 F.3d at 409 n.34 ; In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 868 F.3d 231, 256 n.12 (3d Cir ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2018
In re Remicade Antitrust Litig.
"... ... v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp. , 382 U.S. 172, 86 S.Ct. 347, 15 L.Ed.2d 247 (1965) standard, under which "[f]raudulent procurement of a patent ... can provide the basis for antitrust liability" such as monopolization of a relevant market. In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 868 F.3d 231, 266 (3d Cir. 2017). A plaintiff alleging fraud must "state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). See United States ex ... "

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
2 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2017
Developments in Global Securities Litigation
"...(Austl.). 287 See Multiplex Funds Mgmt Ltd v P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd, [2007] 164 FCR 275 (Austl.). 288 Money Max Int. Pty Ltd (Trustee) v QBE Ins Grp Ltd, [2016] FCAFC 148 (Austl.). 289 Kevin LaCroix, Class Action Litigation in Australia Poised for Further Growth, D&O Diary (Dec. 14, ..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2020
Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie Inc. (3d Cir. 2020)
"...generic), In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig. Indirect Purchaser Class, 868 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2017), and In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017) (settling a related claim for much less than it was objectively worth on one drug and a "no authorized generic" agreement on ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.