Cases

692 F.Supp.2d 453 (2010) WYETH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 08-230 (JAP). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. February 8, 2010. *454 Donald A. Robinson, Keith J. Miller, Robinson, Wettre & Miller LLC, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiffs. Thomas R. Curtin, George C. J

MEMORANDUM OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ethypharm S.A. France (“Ethypharm”) brought this action against defendant Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) on March 3, 2008. (D.I. 1) Both parties are manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs, more specifically, fenofibrate. Ethypharm alleges that Abbott has interfered with Ethypharm’s licensee from marketing and

598 F.Supp.2d 611 (2009) ETHYPHARM S.A. FRANCE, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant. Civ. No. 08-126-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. February 20, 2009. *613 Gregory B. Williams, Esquire of Fox Rothchild LLP, Wilmington, DE, of counsel, Dwight P. Bostwick, Esquire and Bruce R. Grace, Esquire of Baach Robin

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. (“LWD”), Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. (“RDC”) and Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc. (together, “Meijer”) (collec*220tively, the “direct purchaser plaintiffs” or the (“proposed DP

524 F.Supp.2d 553 (2007) ABBOTT LABORATORIES and Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, INC. and Cordis Corporation, Defendants. Civ. Nos. 06-613-SLR, 07-259-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. November 28, 2007. *554 Frederick L. Cottrell III, Anne Shea Gaza, Richards, Layton & F

OPINION OF THE COURT HUTCHINSON, Circuit Judge. Barr Laboratories, Incorporated (Barr) appeals a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granting summary judgment to appel-lee Abbott Laboratories (Abbott). The district court exercised subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE ex rel. TONY RACKAUCKAS, as District Attorney, etc., Real Party in Interest. S249895 Fourth Appellate District, Division One D072577

Filed 5/31/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al., Petitioners, v. D072577 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, (Orange County Super. Ct.

Filed 6/27/18 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al., D072577 Petitioners, (Orange County Super. Ct. No. 30-2016-00879117-CU-B

62 F.Supp.2d 1186 (1999) Eric J. WRIGHT, a disabled minor, By and Through The TRUST COMPANY OF KANSAS, Conservator of the Estate of Eric J. Wright, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant. No. 97-1333-JTM. United States District Court, D. Kansas. August 16, 1999. *1187 Lynn R. Johnson, Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Overla

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial. Summary Judgment Judge Susan J. Dlott, United States District Court This is a product liability case under Ohio law arising from Plaintiff Pamela Rheinfrank’s ingestion of the antiepileptic drug, , Depakote,1 during her pregnancy with her daughter, M.B

780 F.Supp.2d 600 (2011) William J. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:05-cv-1065. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. February 7, 2011. *608 Russell Allen Kelm, Joanne W. Detrick, Law Offices of Russell Kelm, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff. Jeffrey S. Hiller, Littl

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROSENSTENGEL, United States District Judge: Pending before the Court are twenty-two motions in limine filed by Abbott and three motions in limine filed by Plaintiffs.1 At the February 9 final pretrial conference, the parties advised the Court that the first five motions in limine filed by Abbott bear the most impact on

RADER, Circuit Judge. In this case, the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,935,507 (the '507 patent), occasions litigation in both the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Virginia District Court granted the motion of Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively Lupin) for summary judgment of noninfringement. I

378 F.Supp.2d 850 (2005) Gary SCHOR, a Florida resident, on behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation, Defendant. No. 05 C 1592. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. July 12, 2005. *851 Ben Barnow, Barnow & Associates, P.C., Sharon Harris, Ba

469 F.Supp.2d 842 (2006) State of HAWAII, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. CV 06-00437 DAE/BMK. United States District Court, D. Hawaii. November 30, 2006. *843 *844 Robert S. Libman, Esq., Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., Chicago, IL, Warren Price, III, Esq

497 F.Supp. 269 (1980) ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Plaintiff, v. CENTAUR CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. and Fisher Scientific Company, Defendants. CENTAUR CHEMICAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant. Nos. 77 C 0602, 78 C 0665. United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D. August 1, 1980. *270 Ronald E. Larso

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, thirteen independent retail druggists, filed an antitrust complaint against twenty-eight drug manufacturers, alleging violations of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a). The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

(2008) TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Fournier Industrie Et Sante and Laboratoires Fournier S.A., Counterclaim Defendants. Impax Laboratories, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Abbott Laboratories, Fournier Industrie Et Sante and Laboratoires Fournier S.A., Counterclaim Defendants. In re Tricor Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. In re

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge PROST. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. PROST, Circuit Judge. Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) brought suit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) alleging infringement of its patents relating to extended release formulations of clarithromycin. Abbott moved for a preliminary injunction against Teva on the grounds