Cases

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 258 Respondents contend that Vioxx, a prescription drug, caused their decedent's death. In Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,Inc. v. Havner, 1 we set requirements for determining whether epidemiological evidence is scientifically reliable to prove ca

AMENDED MEMORANDUM JONES, II, District Judge. In Civil Action No. 10-4374, Relators Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlo-chowski (“Plaintiffs”) bring this qui tam action in accordance with the False Claims Act (“FCA”), pursuant to -31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33. Relators allege that their former employer, Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) fraudulently misled the government and omitted, c

PER CURIAM: * Appearing pro se, the plaintiff-appellant, Sergi Chepilko, has filed a three-page brief. It is difficult to tell what legal claims he makes on appeal. The only issue stated is “[wjhether District Court correctly dismissed with prejudice all claims of plaintiff for failure to comply with PreTrial Order 28.” Chepilko asserts that he “did not receive from t

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER JOHN F. KEENAN, District Judge: Plaintiffs are Virginia residents who brought suit against Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (“Merck”) for alleged jaw injuries caused by Merck’s prescription osteoporosis drug Fosamax. Merck moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure claiming that Plaintiffs’

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.

434 F.Supp.2d 257 (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. June 14, 2006.

ORDER & REASONS FALLON, District Judge. Before the Court is the Plaintiff Evelyn Irvin Plunkett’s Motion for New Trial (Rec.Doc.3674). The Court heard oral argument and took this motion under submission. Due to a misrepresentation by one of Merck’s primary witnesses that prevented Ms. Plunkett from fully and fairly presenting her case, the Plaintiffs motion for a new trial is now GRANTED and t

ORDER & REASONS ELDON E. FALLON, District Judge. Currently pending before the Court is Merck’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to the claims of the County of Santa Clara (Rec. Doc. 63425). The Court has reviewed the briefs and the applicable law and heard oral argument on the motion and is now prepared to rule. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

ORDER & REASONS KNOWLES, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the Motion of Merck & Co., Inc. to Exclude Testimony of Robert H. Fletcher, M.D., M.Sc. (Rec. Doc. 2858); the Motion of Merck & Co., Inc. to Exclude the Testimony of Michael Alan Graham, M.D. (Rec.Doc. 2981); and the Motion of Merck & Co., Inc. to Exclude the Testimony of Wayne A. Ray, Ph.D. (Rec.Doc.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Scott and Janice Moss (“the Mosses”), the parents of a young child who, they allege, developed autism as a result of receiving vaccines containing mercury, wish to pursue state law tort claims for injuries they suffered as a result of the child’s condition. Although their claims are not barred by the literal terms of the National Childho

MEMORIALIZING OPINION Re: Final Approval of Biotin and Niacin Defendants Settlements THOMAS F. HOGAN, Chief Judge. Pending before the Court is class plaintiffs’ Motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) and 54 for Final Approval of Settlement Between Class Plaintiffs and Defendants Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd., Sum-itomo Chemical America, Inc., Tanabe

ORDER RE BARD’S ASSERTION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE AS TO FORTY-THREE JOINT SELECTION DOCUMENTS WILLIAM G. COBB, United States Magistrate Judge. In this order, the court will undertake a review of the assertion of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine by Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) as to certain do

Taranto, Circuit Judge. *1233 This case involves two patents relating to treatments for Hepatitis C. Merck & Co., Inc. and Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) collaborated on research in the area and eventually obtained U.S. Patent Nos. 7,105,499 and 8,48

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ Nos. 18-2317 _______________ NORTH SOUND CAPITAL LLC; NORTH SOUND LEGACY INTERNATIONAL; NORTH SOUND LEGACY INSTITUTIONAL; UNITED FOOD COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 500 PENSION FUND; COLONIAL FIRST STATE INVESTMENTS LTD.; CFSIL-CFS WHOLESALE INDEXED GLOBAL SHARE FUND; CFSIL-COMMONWEALTH GLOBAL SHARES FUND 4; C

476 F.Supp.2d 996 (2007) Thomas VOGEL, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Walgreen Co., d/b/a Walgreens, and American Drug Stores, Inc., d/b/a Osco Drugs, Defendants. Civil No. 07-21-GPM. United States District Court, S.D. Illinois. March 6, 2007. *997 Jeffrey J. Lowe, Jeffrey J. Lowe, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.

*502TRIAL OPINION ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: Plaintiff brought this patent infringement suit against Defendant on July 11, 2014. (D.I. 1). On May 29, 2014, Defendant informed Plaintiff that it had filed an ANDA, seeking approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of generic versions of Plaintiffs Invanz product. (D.I. 191, Ex. 1

428 F.Supp.2d 842 (2006) Barbara RUTHERFORD, Edward Miechle, Rachel Garza, Beth Renee Brodhacker, Sandra Zola, Thomas Vogel, Tom Benhoff, Emil Smith, Connie Testa, and Darrell Lane, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Walgreen Co., d/b/a Walgreens, and American Drug Stores, Inc., d/b/a Osco Drugs, Defendants. Civil. No. 06-159-GPM. United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.

PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Emmanual Iwobi appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of a final order dismissing his action against Defendant-Appellee Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Merck). Because Iwobi’s arguments either do not satisfy the standard for relief under Rule 60(b), or are not properly before this court, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.

270 F.Supp.2d 833 (2003) Delia STAPLES and Billy Staples, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Harvey Resnick, M.D., and R/D Clinical Research, Inc., Defendants. No. Civ.A.3:03-CV-0180-M. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. July 1, 2003. Jeffrey B. Simon, Dana Casselli Fox, Melissa Casey Katz, Peter A. Kraus, Walters & Kraus, Dall

WOLFSON, United States District Judge: This case concerns the preclusive scope of Title I of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), which bars plaintiffs in a "covered class action" from asserting state law claims alleging "a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security." 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)(1)(A). SLUSA's definition of a "covered class a