Cases

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca AB, IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc. (collectively, “AstraZeneca”) appeal from the consolidated final orders of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissing their *1373

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Hon. Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff Cindi Bekins filed this product liability action against Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca LP, which Defendants subsequently removed to this Court. See Doc. No. 1. On December 23, 2016, Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca L

534 F.Supp.2d 146 (2008) WALGREEN COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS L.P. et al., Defendants: Rite Aid Corporation et al., Plaintiffs, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P. et al., Defendants. Meijer, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs, v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P. et al., Defendants. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. et al., Plaintiffs, v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al., Defendants. Burl

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge. Plaintiff AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (“AstraZeneca”) has manufactured the drug quetiapine fumarate (“quetiapine”) *62 under the brand name Seroquel® (“Seroquel”) since 1997 without generic competitio

748 F.Supp.2d 453 (2010) TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., Plaintiff v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 08cv4786. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. October 20, 2010. *455 Darcy L. Jones, Jeffrey J. Toney, John L. North, Jonathan Waldrop, Kristin E. Goran, Sutherland Asbill &a;

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JEFFERY POPE AND CYNTHIA ) POPE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) C.A. No.: N20C-06-116 FAR v. ) ) ASTRAZENECA AB, ) ASTRAZENECA ) PHARMACEUTICALS LP, and

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge WALLACH. Opinion concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge O’MALLEY. WALLACH, Circuit Judge. The Fox Group, Inc. (“Fox”) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting Cree, Inc.’s (“Cree”) motion for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,562,1

OPINION ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Justice SAYLOR. This case is among a number of civil actions brought by state attorneys general against pharmaceutical companies nationwide challenging the propriety of prescription drug pricing, in particular, as it impacts third-party reimbursement for brand-name drug purchases subsidized by government social welfare programs. The Commonwealth has ce

Justice BAER, concurring. I concur in the Court’s order vacating the Commonwealth Court’s order and remanding for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Prods. Inc., — Pa.-, 94 A.8d 350, 2014 WL 2728008 (Pa.2014) (Baer, J. concurring)(indieating my view that a remand is warranted for further consideration of the case in light of the OAJC’s analysis of the rebate

Trial Opinion Andrews, U.S. District Judge Plaintiffs Impax Laboratories, AstraZ-eneca UK (“AZUK”), and AstraZeneca AB (“AZAB”) brought suit against Defendants Lannett Holdings, Inc. and Lannett Company, Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,750,237 and 7,220,767 (“the Dearn patents”). *1028The Dearn patents claim inve

Reyna, Circuit Judge. *1336 Alkem Laboratories Limited, Hikma Pharmaceuticals International Limited, and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. appeal the judgment of the district court that

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The question raised in these related remand motions is whether a new Supreme Court decision can be an “order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained” that a case is removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Plaintiffs Illinois, Kentucky and New York brought these seven actions in various state courts alleging t

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: In this case, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals claimed that the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a cancer drug violated *1064 Spectrum’s exclusive marketing rights. The district court granted summary judgment against Spectrum, and we affirm. I

OPINION BYBEE, Circuit Judge: Lead plaintiff Carl, Schwartz filed a putative federal securities class action against Defendants Arena Pharmaceuticals, Jack Lief, Dominic Behan, William Shanahan, and Christen Anderson 1 in connection with public statements made about Arena’s weight-loss drug, lor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION et al., Civil Action No. 24-2428 (TJK) Defendants, v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION, Intervenor-Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION On August

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge. Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, (ECF 5), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF 8). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand. I. Background This case arises out of alleged professional malpractice relating to Defendants’ prior represe

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by the County of Suffolk in New York in this multi-district litigation involving allegations of fraud against various pharmaceutical companies.1 Suffolk alleges that Defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers have fraudulently inflated th

Cite as 2014 Ark. 124 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-12-1058 ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN Opinion Delivered March 20, 2014 PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC., APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI AND/OR JANSSEN, LP; AND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC. [NO. CV2007-15345]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE SCOPE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). Braden, Judge. In Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309 (2012) (en banc) (“Zoltek V”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sua sponte