Cases

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-798 (Filed: 19 August 2022) *************************************** ACTAVIS LABORATORIES, FL, INC., * * Plaintiff, * Summary Judgment; Hatch-Waxman Act; * Tax Deduction; Capitalizati

ORDER JAMES C. DEVER III, Chief Judge. On February 20, 2013, Jill C. McCabe (“McCabe” or “plaintiff’) sued her former *341employer Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (“Abbott” or “defendant”) and makes three claims concerning her 2011 and 2012 incentive compensation: (1) breach of contract; (2) a violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”),

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. These consolidated appeals arise out of two so-called "off-label" prescription-drug-marketing cases aggregated for pretrial proceedings in the District of Massachusetts by order of the multidistrict litigation panel. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc. (collectively "Forest"), engaged in fraud to push

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 18-1146, 18-1147 IN RE: CELEXA AND LEXAPRO MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 82 HEALTH CARE FUND; DELANA S. KIOSSOVSKI; RENEE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; MARLENE T. LOCONTE, Plaintiffs, Appellants, MARTHA PALUMBO, individually and on behalf of al

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

575 F.3d 1341 (2009) BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AG and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 2008-1282. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. August 5, 2009. *1342 Peter B. Bensinger, Jr., Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, of Chicago,

349 F.Supp.2d 1002 (2004) ALZA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants. No. CIV.A.1:03 CV 61. United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia. December 7, 2004. *1005 Frank E. Simmerman, Jr., Esquire, Simmerman Law Office PLLC, Clarksburg, WV, Jeffrey I.D. Lewis, Esquire, J

*700OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 332) AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 328) TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. Introduction This is a breach of contract ease that involves the liquid en

455 F.Supp.2d 831 (2006) ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Plaintiff, v. APOTEX, INC. and Apotex Corporation, Defendants. No. 97 C 7515. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. October 6, 2006. *832 Daniel E. Reidy, James R. Daly, Jason G. Winchester, Robert C. Micheletto, Jones Day, Thomas David Brooks, Sperling &

64 F.Supp.2d 233 (1999) BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. No. 94-CV-6534L. United States District Court, W.D. New York. September 16, 1999. *234 Michael Wolford, Wolford & Leclair LLP, Denis A. Polyn, Jill K. Schultz, Bausch & Lomb, Incorporated, Rochester, NY, Robert L. Ba

ORDER RE: SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW SARIS, District Judge. In this qui tarn action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. and *38state law,1 the government has submitted twelve documents for in camera review which it contends are protected by the deliberative proces

Dissent by Judge BEA OPINION PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: Appellant Efrain Reynaga and his son Richard Reynaga worked as millwrights *683for Roseburg Forest Products (“Rose-burg”). According to Efrain, he and his son were the only millwrights of Mexican descent at Roseburg. Efrain alleges that during the course of his employment, h

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge Plaintiff Forest County Potawatomi Community has brought this action under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") against Defendants United States of America, United States Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs (collectively, the "Federal Defendants"), challenging the Assistant Secretary's decision to disapprov

850 F.Supp. 728 (1994) Lawrence CHANDLER, Plaintiff, v. UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. No. 93 C 4566. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. May 5, 1994. Robert J. Leoni of Brunswick, Keefe & Deer, Blue Island, IL, for plaintiff. Barry A. Hartstein, Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, for defendant. MEM

DYK, Circuit Judge. Cordis Corporation appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting Abbott Laboratories’ motion to quash two subpoenas duces tecum issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 24. We conclude that section 24 only empowers a district court to issue a subpoena for use in a “contested case,” and

OPINION AND ORDER. GREGORY K. FRIZZELL, CHIEF JUDGE Before the court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on the judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying disability benefits to Annette Scott (“Plaintiff’). [Doc. No. 15].- The Magistrate Judge ■recommends that the Co

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Civil Action No. 15-105 (CKK) Defendants, MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN and MENOMINEE KENOSHA GAMING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Intervenors. MEMORANDUM OPINION

* * * * * * * * * * * The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Glenn and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The Full Commission finds that the appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or to rehear the parties or their representatives. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms with modifications, the

26 F.Supp.2d 1029 (1998) HICKORY SPECIALTIES, INC. v. FOREST FLAVORS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and Samuel D. Crace. No. 2-97-0008. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division. November 6, 1998. *1030 Jay Scott Bowen, Timothy L. Warnock, Sarah W. Anderson, Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, PLC, Nashville, TN,

103 F.3d 1571 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1263 WANG LABORATORIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.MITSUBISHI ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and Mitsubishi ElectricCorporation, Defendants/Cross-Appellants. Nos. 95-1276, 95-1324. United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit. Jan. 3, 1997.Rehearing Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Declined