Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
19 opinions for “Watkins v. Actavis Group”
Lashley v. Pfizer, Inc.public domain
*468 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY PFIZER, INC., WYETH, LLC, AND SCHWARZ PHARMA, INC., AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY WATSON PHARMA, INC., AND WATSON LABORATORIES HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN, District Judge. BEFORE THE COURT is a Motion for Summary Judgment [75] filed September 19, 2011, on b
N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed'n, Inc.public domain
Wesley, Circuit Judge: After the denial of its requested Division II designation for the 2018 season of men's professional soccer, the North American Soccer League, LLC ("NASL") filed an antitrust suit against the United States Soccer Federation, Inc. ("USSF"). NASL also moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking designation as a Division II league pending resolution of the suit. This
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. v. Anthony Mackpublic domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., a ) Delaware corporation, and SCILEX ) PHARMACEUTICALS INC., a Delaware ) corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2021-0210-PAF )
REDACTED OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: I.INTRODUCTION. .!.468 II. BACKGROUND.470 A. Factual and Procedural Background.470 III. PRELIMINARY ISSUES .472 A. Otsuka’s Motions to Amend .472 B. Informal Applications to Strike.474 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW APPLICABLE TO MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY REST
N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed'n, Inc.public domain
MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge: Plaintiff North American Soccer League, LLC ("NASL" or "Plaintiff") filed the above-captioned action on September 19, 2017, alleging violations of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) On September 20, 2017, Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking a Division II designation for the duration of this litigation.1
Gardley-Starks v. Pfizer, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge. In this diversity action, Plaintiff Lirlene Gardley-Starks asserts numerous causes of action under Mississippi law, arguing that her ingestion of the prescription drug metoclopramide caused her to develop a neurological disorder known as tardive dyskinesia. Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [81] filed by Defendant Schwarz Pharma
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Perrigo Co.public domain
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL JUDGMENT BASED THEREON SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE This matter is before the Court for decision on the issues of validity, enforceability, and infringement of three patents owned by Plaintiff Acrux DDS PTY Ltd. (“Acrux”). Plaintiff Eli Lilly Export S.A. is the exclusive worldwide licensee of the patents at issue in this litigation and has licensed its rights
We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul Dr. A. v. Hochulpublic domain
21-2179; 21-2566 We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul; Dr. A. v. Hochul In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ______________ August Term, 2021 (Argued: October 27, 2021 Decided: November 4, 2021) Docket
Biocad JSC v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.public domain
17‐3486‐cv Biocad JSC v. F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2018 (Argued: October 23, 2018 Decided: November 5, 2019) Docket No. 17‐3486 BIOCAD JSC,
Goldberg, District Judge. The question before me is whether a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") pertaining to a $125 million antitrust resolution constitutes a binding settlement agreement. This dispute arises from several antitrust claims, brought pursuant to FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136,
Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alex Azar, IIpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 17, 2019 Decided March 13, 2020 No. 18-5207 EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., APPELLEE v. ALEX MICHAEL AZAR, II, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., APPELLEES APOTEX, INC., APPELLANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION Paul W. Grimm, United States District Judge The litigation history between the Intellectual Ventures companies (Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants, Third-Party Defendants, and Joined Counter-Defendants to this action;, collectively referred to as “IV”) and the Capital One companies (Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Third-Party Plaintiffs' in this action; co
LLM Bar Exam, LLC v. Barbri, Inc.public domain
OPINION AND ORDER KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: This is a dispute between two companies that prepare law school graduates for a time-honored (and seemingly Sisyphean) rite of legal passage: the bar examination. Each year, thousands of foreign attorneys obtain Master of Laws (“LL.M.”) degrees from American law schools. Since 2009, Plaintiff LLM Bar
19-3591, 19-3595 New York v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Make the Road New York v. Cuccinelli UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2019 Argued: March 2, 2020 Decided: August 4, 2020 Docket Nos. 19-3591, 19-3595 STATE OF N
Steves & Sons, Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.public domain
The jury found that, as a consequence of the merger and JELD-WEN's conduct in 2014 and thereafter, competition was substantially lessened in the doorskin market and that, as a result, Steves sustained injuries of the type that the antitrust laws were designed to prevent. Thereupon, the jury awarded Steves $58,632,454.00 in antitrust damages which, when trebled as required by statute, amounts to antitrust damages in the amount of $175,897,362.00. The jury al
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant QUALITY CARTRIDGES, INC., JOHN DOES, 1-20, BLUE TRADING LLC, EXPRINT INTERNATIONAL, INC., LD PRODUCTS, INC., PRINTRONIC CORPORATION, TESEN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) CO. LTD., BENIGNO ADEVA AND HIS
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant QUALITY CARTRIDGES, INC., JOHN DOES, 1-20, BLUE TRADING LLC, EXPRINT INTERNATIONAL, INC., LD PRODUCTS, INC., PRINTRONIC CORPORATION, TESEN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) CO. LTD., BENIGNO ADEVA AND HIS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERYL L. POLLAK, United States Magistrate Judge. On November 17, 2003, plaintiff Haggar International Corporation, d/b/a Montana Food Industries (“Haggar”), commenced this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b), against United Company for Food Industry Corporation (“United”) and Trans Mid-East Shipping & Trading Agency, Inc. (“Trans Mid-East”) (collectively, the “defe
OPINION OF THE COURT JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Table of Contents I.Background.... 143 A. The Hatch-Waxman Act.143 B. Factual and Procedural Background. ...145 II. Discussion... .147, A. Sham Litigation.... 147