Cases

Savage, District Judge In this private securities fraud action, we must appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel under 15 U.S.C.A. § 78u-4. In doing so, we are confronted with two competing principles for determining the lead plaintiffs-the presumptive lead plaintiff rule and the preference for appointing institutional investors. We must also choose the appropriate method for calculating who has the larger financial interest.

Savage, Judge In this putative class action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq. , and the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq. , SEB Investment Management AB (SEB) claims that the defendants publicly downplayed the risks of Endo's reformulated opioid

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 1, 2023 Decided August 25, 2023 No. 22-5137 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, APPELLANT v. ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:2

Diamond, District Judge. After the Federal Trade Commission voluntarily dismissed its enforcement action in this Court against Plaintiffs Watson Laboratories and Allergan Finance-and then refiled that same enforcement action in California-Plaintiffs brought this declaratory judgment suit, repeating the arguments made in their motions to dismiss in the original enforcement action. Although the FTC's apparent forum shopping may warran

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge. Plaintiffs Enzo Biochem, Inc. and Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (collectively “Enzo” or “Plaintiffs”) bring these actions for patent infringement against Defendants.1 Before the Court is Defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment that some of the accused products (1) do not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 4,994,373 (the “'373 P

438 F.3d 1123 PURDUE PHARMA L.P., the Purdue Frederick Company, the P.F. Laboratories, Inc., and the Purdue Pharma Company, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants, andEuroceltique S.A., Counterclaim Defendant,v.ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Cross Appellant, andEndo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc., Defendant-Cross Appellant. No. 04-1189. No. 04-1347.

PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge. This is a patent case. It arose when Purdue Pharma L.P., The Purdue Frederick Company, The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., and The Purdue Pharma Company (collectively, “Purdue”) filed an infringement suit against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. (collectively, “Endo”) in the United States District Court for the Southern Di

440 F.Supp.2d 120 (2006) TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP d/b/a United States Surgical, a division of Tyco Healthcare Group LP, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant v. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., Defendant-Counterclaimant. No. 3:04cv1702 (JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. July 14, 2006. Drew M. Wintringham, III, Mark Kirsch, Mark W. Rueh, Clifford Chance U.S.

PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge. This is a patent infringement case in which the patents were held unenforceable by the trial judge due to inequitable conduct during prosecution before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Purdue Pharma L.P., The Purdue Frederick Company, The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., and The Purdue Pharma Company (collectively, “Purdue”) filed an infringement suit against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc

411 F.Supp.2d 93 (2006) TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP d/b/a United States Surgical, a division of Tyco Healthcare Group LP Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant v. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. Defendant-Counterclaimant No. 3:04 CV 1702(JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. January 23, 2006. *94 *95

450 F.Supp.2d 1344 (2006) PALMTOP PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. LO-Q PLC, et al., Defendants. Civil Action File No. 1:04-CV-3606-TWT. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. August 28, 2006. *1345 *1346 *1347

855 F.Supp. 1500 (1994) ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES SURGICAL CORP., Defendant. No. C-1-94-74. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. June 3, 1994. *1501 *1502 *1503 Robert Alexander Pitcairn, Jr., Katz, Teller, Bran

705 F.Supp.2d 1115 (2010) TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. STINGER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. No. 07-042-PHX-MHM. United States District Court, D. Arizona. March 31, 2010. *1120 Aaron H. Matz, Chad Steven Campbell, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA, Phoenix, AZ, Holly L. Gibeaut, Taser International, Scottsdale, AZ, John R.

750 F.Supp.2d 780 (2010) TESCO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, INC., National Oilwell Varco, L.P., Offshore Energy Services, Inc., and Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. H-08-2531. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. September 27, 2010. *785 Gle

613 F.Supp.2d 823 (2009) TIDEL ENGINEERING L.P., Plaintiff, v. FIRE KING INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:07-CV-77 (TJW). United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. January 6, 2009. *825 Kenneth Wayne Biermacher, Charles Edward Phipps, Roy William Hardin, Kane Russell Coleman & Loga

92 F.Supp.2d 671 (2000) The BOLER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NEWAY ANCHORLOK, INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. No. 5:99CV1934. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. March 14, 2000. *672 David L Drechsler, David P. Dureska, John B Schomer, Karen K Grasso, Mark J. Skakun, Walter A Lucas, Buckingham, Doolitle & B

739 F.Supp.2d 1089 (2010) GOSS INTERNATIONAL AMERICAS, INC., Plaintiff, v. GRAPHIC MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., Muller Martini Corp., Muller Martini Corp., Muller Martini Druckverarbeitungs-Systeme AG, Muller Martini Holding AG, Muller Martini Marketing AG, and Grapha-Holding AG, Defendants. Case No. 05 C 5622. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. Sept

311 F.Supp.2d 1297 (2003) FREE MOTION FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Nautilus' Group Inc. and Nautilus Human Performance Systems, Inc., Defendants. Nos. CIV.1:01-CV-152-J, CIV.1:02-CV-122. United States District Court, D. Utah, Northern Division. December 30, 2003. *1298 *129

264 F.Supp.2d 135 (2003) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSAL AVIONICS SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants. No. C.A.02-359-MPT. United States District Court, D. Delaware. May 30, 2003. *136 Thomas L. Halkowski, Esquire, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, for Defendant, Sandel Avionics, Inc. <

446 F.Supp.2d 297 (2006) NOVOZYMES A/S, Plaintiff, v. GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL, INC. and Enzyme Development Corporation, Defendants. No. CIV.A. 05-160-KAJ. United States District Court, D. Delaware. August 24, 2006. *298 *299 *300