Cases

Case: 18-2003 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 04/14/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ERICSSON INC., TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED, TCT MOBILE LIMITED, TCT MOBILE (US) INC., Defendants-Appellants ______________________

MEMORANDUM EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Relator, Ronald J. Streck (“Plaintiff’), has filed a motion seeking relief from this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated July 3, 2012 (EOF Nos. 173, 174), granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Preliminarily, Plaintiffs motion raises a procedural issue; namely, which rule of procedure go

339 F.Supp.2d 202 (2004) AMGEN, INC., Plaintiff, v. HOECHST MARION ROUSSEL, INC. and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 97-10814-WGY. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. October 15, 2004. *203 *204 *205

MEMORANDUM EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................587 II. BACKGROUND...........................................................588 III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW................................................590 A. Pleading Under Rule 8(a) .........

486 F.Supp.2d 767 (2007) ABBOTT LABORATORIES and Astellas Pharma, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. SANDOZ, INC., Sandoz GmbH, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Ranbaxy, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., and Par Pharmaceutical, Defendants. No. 07 C 1721. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. May

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANUEL ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, No. 20-70158 AKA Manuel Antonio Hernandez, Petitioner, Agency No. A073-897-003 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney OPINION General, Respondent. On Petition for Review

Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns the requirements applicable to a particular method of serving civil process on a foreign state. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), a foreign state may be served by means of a mailing that is "addressed and dispatched ... to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned."

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND; No. 17-16858 STOP ANIMAL EXPLOITATION NOW; COMPANION ANIMAL PROTECTION D.C. No. SOCIETY; ANIMAL FOLKS, 3:17-cv-00949- Plaintiffs-Appellants, WHO v. OPINION UNITED STATES DE

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP AND MALLINCKRODT INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC. AND UNITED RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants-Appellants. ______________________ 2013-1386 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District

N.R. Smith, Circuit Judge: The Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requires federal agencies to make certain agency records "available for public inspection in an electronic format." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). FOIA's judicial-review provision authorizes district courts to enjoin violations of this "reading-room" provision

13-0618 Republic of Iraq v. ABB AG 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ------ 4 August Term, 2013 5 (Argued: February 18, 2014 Decided: September 18, 2014) 6 Docket No. 13-0618 7 ___________________________________________

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 15-3475 _____________ IN RE: MODAFINIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION Mylan Laboratories, Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd; Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Appellants _____________ On Appeal

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YOUNG, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION A group of wholesale drug distributors (the “Direct Purchasers”) and health and welfare benefit funds (the “End-Payors” 1) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, brings this multidistrict, putative class action against AstraZeneca AB, Akt

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YOUNG, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This case, arising under the federal antitrust laws and state analogues, presents a *240challenge to the use of reverse payment settlements in patent litigation. Reverse payment settlements are agreements to settle patent infringement litigation under which t