Cases

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correct

GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge: This case requires us to consider whether a clause in a settlement agreement which bars a patent licensee from later challenging the patent’s validity is void for public policy reasons under the Supreme Court’s decision in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 89 S.Ct. 1902, 23 L.Ed.2d 610 (1969), where the parties entered into t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 20-2984 (RDM) MARTY WALSH, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case poses the question whether it is enough to be right on the merits of an administrative action, even if wrong on

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VINOD SODHA; AMEE SODHA, No. 24-1036 D.C. No. Plaintiffs - Appellants, 3:21-cv-09767- EMC v. PHILIP GOLUBOWSKI, OPINION individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellee, ROBINHOOD MA

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1493 Doc: 132 Filed: 08/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 46 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1493 BESTWALL LLC, f/k/a Georgia-Pacific LLC, a Texas limited liability company and a North Carolina limited liability company, De

William J. Martinez, United States District Judge A portion of Interstate 70 ("I-70") running through northeast Denver was constructed in the 1960s as a viaduct running above the neighborhoods through which it passed. This structure has apparently caused concern for some time in light of its age and the increase in traffic that naturally attends population growth. Defendant Federal Highway Administration ("Highway Administration") a

425 F.Supp.2d 402 (2006) MERCK & CO., INC. and MSD Technology, L.P., Plaintiffs, v. MEDIPLAN HEALTH CONSULTING, INC., d/b/a RxNorth.com, Defendant. And Related Cases. Nos. 05 CIV. 3650(DC), 05 CIV. 3696(DC), 05 CIV. 3698(DC), 05 CIV. 3699(DC), 05 CIV. 3700(DC), 05 CIV. 3701(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 30, 2006.

OPINION FOR PUBLIC VIEWING BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ... 493 II. BACKGROUND ... 494 A. The Drug Approval Process ... 494 B. The Patents-in-Suit ... 495 i. The ’898 Patent ... 495 ii. The ’131 Patent ... 495 iii. The ’930 Patent ... 495

334 F.Supp.2d 835 (2004) Meenakshi VENUGOPAL, Plaintiff, v. SHIRE LABORATORIES, Defendant. No. CIV.A. AW-02-3534. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division. August 26, 2004. *836 *837 Steven W. Ray, Esq., Edward Lee Isler, Esq., and Jeffrey L. Rhodes, Esq., Vienna, VA, for D

MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this consolidated patent infringement action, plaintiffs Allergan, Inc., Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions Inc., and Super-nus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) allege that pharmaceutical products proposed by defendants Watson Laboratories, Inc.—Florida, San

ACCEPTED 03-14-00765-CV 4402607 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

OPINION STARK, District Judge: In July 2011, the Court held a four-day bench trial in this patent infringement action brought pursuant to the Hatch-Wax-man Act. The case arises from Defendant’s efforts to bring to market a generic version of Plaintiffs’ Oracea® drug product, a once-daily 40 milligram (mg) administration of doxycycline indicated for the treatment of acne rosacea. Plaintiffs asse

RADER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. This court labors for page after page, paragraph after paragraph, explanation after explanation to say what could have been said in a single sentence: “Because Bilski claims merely an abstract idea, this court affirms the Board’s rejection.” If the only problem of this vast judicial tome were its circuitous path, I would not dissent, but this venture also disrupts settled and

ACCEPTED 13-15-00024-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/6/2015 3:52:31 PM