Cases

OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on review of defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 55) filed on May 17, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. # 59) on June 14, 2013. Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. # 62) on June 28, 2013, and plaintiffs filed a Sur-Reply (Doc. # 65) on July 5, 2013. I.

OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE, Senior District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #82) filed on December 23, 2014. Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #89) on January 20, 2015. Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. # 92) on February 2, 2015, and plaintiffs filed a Sur-Reply (Doc. # 95) on February 10, 2015.

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 598 U. S. Part 2 Pages 594–616 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT May 18, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

Case: 22-1149 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 04/19/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ AMGEN INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. SANDOZ INC., ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., Defendants-Appellants MANKIND PHARMA LTD., TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MACLEODS

Judge KOZINSKI, with whom Judges O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: The Supreme Court has previously admonished us for ignoring a grant, vacate and remand (GVR) order and “reinstating [our] judgment without seriously confronting the significance of the cases called to [our] attention.” Cavazos v. Smith, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2, 7, 181 L.Ed.2d 311

SMITH, Chief Judge. In this consolidated products liability suit appeal, Jan Vallejo challenges the district court's 1 order limiting the scope of her general causation phase discovery. She also contests the court's sanctions order against her counsel. We find no abuse of discretion in either of the court's d

Case: 20-1074 Document: 132 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ AMGEN INC., AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LIMITED, AMGEN USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SANOFI, AVENTISUB LLC, FKA AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS INC., REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Defendants-Appe

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVE HARRIS; DENNIS F. RAMOS, No. 10-56014 AKA Dennis Ramos; DONALD HANKS; JORGE TORRES; ALBERT D.C. No. CAPPA, On Behalf of Themselves 2:07-cv-05442- and All Others Similarly Situated, PSG-PLA Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ORDER AND AMENDED AMGEN, INC.; AMGEN

Case: 22-1147 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 04/19/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ AMGEN INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. SANDOZ INC., ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., Defendants-Appellants MANKIND PHARMA LTD., TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MACLEODS

ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE On September 18, 2015, Amgen, Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (collectively, "Amgen") sued Hospira, Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,856,298 under 35 U.S.C. §§

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMGEN INC., Plaintiff, v. ERIC D. HARGAN, Acting Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Civil Action No. 17-1006 (RDM) Defendants, and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et al., Intervenor-Defendants.

OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs, current and former employees of Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) and its subsidiary Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (“AML”), participated in two employer-sponsored pension plans, the Amgen Retirement and Savings. Plan (the “Amgen Plan”) and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (the “AML Plan”) (c

RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge To encourage pharmaceutical companies to study the safety and effectiveness of pediatric uses of drugs approved for adults, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FFDCA") grants six months of "pediatric exclusivity" to the sponsor of a brand-name drug if the sponsor conducts studies that "fairly respond" to a "written request" from the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). 21 U.S.C

OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs, current and former employees of Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) and its subsidiary Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (“AML”), participated in two employer-sponsored pension plans, the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan (the “Amgen Plan”) and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (the “AML Plan”)

ORDER The opinion filed on June 4, 2013, and published at 717 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.2013), is withdrawn and replaced by the attached opinion. With the filing of the new opinion, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Fletcher has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Farris and Kor-man so recommend. <

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On October 17, 2014, plaintiffs Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing Limited, and Amgen USA Inc. (collectively “plaintiffs”) brought this action alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,563,698; 8,829,165 (“the 165 patent”); and 8,859,741 (“the ’741 patent”) against defendants Sa-nofi, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Aventisub LLC, and Reg

Filed 4/9/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE AMGEN INC., B296563 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18STCP03147) v. HEALTH CARE SERVICES, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court o

DYK, Circuit Judge. Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) appeals an order of the United States District Court for the District of Délaware denying Amgen’s motion to compel discovery from Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) in a patent infringement case governed by the Biologies Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, 804 (2010) (amending 42 U.S.C. § 2

PROST, Chief Judge. Appellants Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, Re-generan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from a final judgment of the district court holding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,829,165 (“’165 patent”) and 8,859,741 (“’741 patent”) not invalid and granting a permanent injunction enjoining sales of Appellants’