Cases

MELLOY, Circuit Judge. This is a failure-to-warn case involving the prescription drug Baycol, a cholesterol-reducing medication. The case comes to us after the district court 1 granted Bayer’s motion for summary judgment on Flesner’s claims for strict liability, negligence, express and implied warranty, and unjust enric

MOORE, Circuit Judge. Watson Laboratories, Inc. appeals the District of Delaware’s final judgment holding Wat$on failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,613,950 (“the ’950 patent”) would have been obvious. We hold the district court clearly erred in finding a skilled artisan would not have been motiva

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J. ¶ 70. 0dissenting). The majority opinion concludes that the second amended complaint (the complaint) of the plaintiffs sufficiently alleges a violation of Wisconsin's antitrust law, Wis. Stat. § 133.03 (2005-06),1 to withstand a motion to dismiss. Majority op., ¶ 4. It does so based on the complaint's allegations that an agreement concerning ciprofloxacin hydrochloride be

718 N.W.2d 251 (2006) 2006 WI App 102 Barbara A. MEYERS, Lynn Stucker, Loyal Berg and Eugene Browning, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAYER AG, Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Rugby Group, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Hoeschst Marion Roussel, Inc., Defendants-Respondents.[†] No. 2003AP2840.

320 F.Supp.2d 1216 (2004) Larry PAUL, Plaintiff, v. BAYER AG, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A.04AR0524-S. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division. April 27, 2004. *1217 Jonathan W. Cartee, Julie M. Rooksberry, Shelby Roden & Cartee LLC, M. Shane Lucado, Brenda L. Harrell, Law Offices of M. Shane Lucado LLC

143 F.Supp.2d 1044 (2001) Barbara A. MEYERS, Plaintiff, v. BAYER AG, Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Rugby Group, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. Defendants. No. 00-C-1582. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. May 18, 2001. *1045 John C. Cabaniss, Law Office of John C. Cabaniss,

518 F.Supp.2d 617 (2007) BAYER AG, Bayer Healthcare AG, and Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD., and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Defendants. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. Bayer AG, Bayer Healthcare AG, and Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Counterclaim Defendants. Civ. No. 04-179-SLR.

625 F.3d 779 (2010) ARKANSAS CARPENTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, Maria Locurto, Paper, Allied-Indus, United Food and Commercial Workers Union-Employer, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Arthur's Drug Store, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Sol Lubin, Ann Stuart, Linda K. McIntyre, Plaintiffs, v. BAYER AG, Bayer Corp., formerly doing business as Miles Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., The Rugby Group,

604 F.3d 98 (2010) ARKANSAS CARPENTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, Maria Locurto, Paper, Allied-Indus, United Food and Commercial Workers Union-Employer, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Arthur's Drug Store, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAYER AG, Bayer Corp., formerly doing business as Miles Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., The Rugby Group, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Barr Laboratories Inc.,

PROST, Circuit Judge. This case under the Hatch-Waxman Act presents the issue of whether a settlement agreement between a patent holder and a generic manufacturer violates the antitrust laws. The agreements here involve a reverse payment from the patent holder to the generic manufacturer, but do not implicate the 180-day exclusivity period. Indirect purchasers of Cipro and several advocacy groups (“appellants”) appeal the

35 F.Supp.2d 192 (1999) BAYER AG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BIOVAIL LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Nos. Civ. 98-1282 (RLA), Civ. 98-1340 (RLA), Civ. 98-1494 (RLA), Civ. 98-1768 (RLA). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. January 29, 1999. Salvador Antonetti-Zequeira, Fiddler, Gonzalez & Rodriguez, San Juan, P.R., David C. Indiano, Indiano, William

64 F.Supp.2d 1295 (1999) BAYER AG and Bayer Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. ELAN PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH CORPORATION and Elan Corporation, PLC, Defendants. No. Civ. 2:97-CV-143-WCO. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Gainesville Division. March 16, 1999. *1296 *1297 Julian D. Fleming, Jr.

JON O. NEWMAN,. Chief Judge: This appeal primarily concerns the permissible scope of an injunction issued to protect American trademark rights against infringement by a foreign corporation. The context of the dispute is the name and mark “Bayer” in which both an American corporation, Sterling Drug Inc. (“Sterling”), and a German corporation, Bayer AG, hold rights. The appeal is brought by Bayer AG, Bayer U.S.A. Inc., and Mil

ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of George Pieczen-ik’s unopposed motion to dismiss Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. et al. from this appeal, It Is Ordered That: The motion is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.

792 F.Supp. 1357 (1992) STERLING DRUG INC., Plaintiff, v. BAYER AG, Bayer USA Inc., Mobay Corporation and Miles Inc., Defendants. No. 90 Civ. 3460 (RJW). United States District Court, S.D. New York. May 15, 1992. *1358 *1359 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City (Lewis A.

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2183 BELMORA LLC, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BAYER CONSUMER CARE AG, a Swiss Corporation; BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants – Consolidated Plaintiffs – Appellants,

ON MOTION PER CURIAM. ORDER The Defendants-Appellees move to dismiss George Pieczenik’s appeals. Pieczen-ik opposes. Pieczenik has appealed from orders denying his motion “in limine to expunge plaintiffs copyright lecture proffered by defendants’ counsel and to charge them with digital copyright infringement,” denying his motion for mediation, and his motion fo

510 F.3d 828 (2007) Richard J. MEDALIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAYER CORPORATION; Bayer AG; GlaxoSmithKline PLC; SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 07-1126. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: October 18, 2007. Filed: December 28, 2007. *829 Robert J. Cynkar, argued,

SIXTH DIVISION February 2, 2007 No. 1-04-3879 JAMES W. JENSEN, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court Plaintiff-Appellant, ) of Cook County. ) ) ) ) v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DE MENT, District Judge. Before the court is Defendant Bayer Corporation’s (“Bayer”) Emergency Motion To Vacate which was filed on November 14, 2001.1 (Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiffs filed a Response thereto on November 21 (Doc. No. 16), to which Bayer filed a Reply on November 30. (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiffs in turn filed a Supplemental Response on