Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendant Kolon Industries, Inc.’s (“Kolon”) MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE AND TO DISMISS INDICTMENT (Docket No. 21). For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND On August 21, 2012, a federal grand jury returned a six count Indictme

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UCB, INC., UCB BIOPHARMA SPRL, RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HARRIS FRC CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC., INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MYLAN INC., ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED, AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, AMNEAL PH

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 6,713,446 (“the ’446 Patent”), issued March 30, 2004 and assigned to the United States. Millennium developed the patented product for treatment of oncology disease, particularly multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma. The product has the brand

OPINION STARK, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs — UCB, Inc., UCB BioPharma SPRL, Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., and Harris FRC Corporation (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) — allege that Defendants — Accord Healthcare, Inc., Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Auro-bindo Pharma USA,

OPINION AND ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge. In this civil action, plaintiffs Ultratec, Inc. and CapTel, Inc., contend that defendants Sorenson Communications, Inc. and CaptionCall, LLC have infringed the following eight patents related to a telephone relay system between deaf and hearing users: United States Patents Nos. 5,909,-482, 6,233,314, 6,594,346, 6,603,835, 7,319,-

Case: 23-2254 Document: 118 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MERCK SHARP & DOHME B.V., MERCK SHARP & DOHME, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., USV PRIVATE LIMITED, GLAND PHARMA LIMITED, MANKIND PHARMA LTD., LIFESTAR PHARMA LLC, FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC, DR. REDDY'S L

ACCEPTED 05-15-01292-CV 05-15-01292-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) brings this motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) from “making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing

640 F.Supp.2d 553 (2009) ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. NAVINTA, LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 07-1251 (JAP). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. August 3, 2009. *557 Michael R. Griffinger, Sheila F. McShane, Anthony M. Gruppuso, Gibbons, PC, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiff. Christina Lynn Saveriano, Eric I.

28 F.Supp.2d 192 (1998) AFFYMETRIX, INC., Plaintiff, v. SYNTENI, INC. and Incyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants. Nos. CIV. A. 98-006-GMS, 98-520-GMS. United States District Court, D. Delaware. November 18, 1998. *193 Stewart B. Young, Matt Denn, Martin S. Lessner, John W. Shaw, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 95 WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION In this multidistrict antitrust litigation, plaintiffs challenge in their consolidated complaints a settlement between Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Endo”), a distributor of the brand-name drug Lidoderm, Tei-koku Seiyaku Co., its ma

494 F.Supp.2d 54 (2007) AMGEN, INC., Plaintiff, v. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD., a Swiss Company, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, a German Company and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., a New Jersey Corporation Defendants. No. CIV.A. 05-12237-WGY. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 3, 2007. *55 *56

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RADER. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge PROST. RADER, Circuit Judge. During trial, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and held that Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies North America Corp., and Infineon Technologies Holding North America Inc. (collectively Infineon

318 F.3d 1081 RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, Infineon Technologies North America Corp., and Infineon Technologies Holding North America Inc., Defendants-Cross Appellants. No. 01-1449. No. 01-1583. No. 01-1604. No. 01-1641. No. 02-1174. No. 02-1192. <

339 F.Supp.2d 804 (2004) In re: DYNEGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, et al., v. Dynegy, Inc., et al. No. CIV.A. H-02-1571. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. October 7, 2004. *805 *806

2 F.Supp.2d 1231 (1998) Gary WENGER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LUMISYS, INC., Stephen J. Weiss, Craig Klosterman, John M. Burgess, Linden J. Livoni, Eystein G. Thordarson, Douglas G. DeVivo, Jesse I. Treu, Helios Partners Limited Partnership, Bala S. Manian, Hambrecht & Quist LLC, UBS Securities, Inc. and Volpe Welty & Co., Defendants. No. C-97-20609 RMW. <

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LAKE, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction.818 II. Standard of Review.818 III. Factual Allegations.819 A. Black Thunder.819 B. Project Alpha.820 1. Misrepresentations .820 2. Olis Trial.820 C. Imp

734 F.Supp. 1542 (1990) XEROX CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Defendant. No. C-89-4428-VRW. United States District Court, N.D. California. April 10, 1990. *1543 Henry C. Bunsow, Anthony B. Diepenbrock, Theodore G. Brown, III, Susan E. Hollander, Townsend and Townsend, San Francisco, Cal., Ronald Zibelli, Harvey M

930 F.2d 277 1991 Copr.L.Dec. P 26,717, 19 Fed.R.Serv.3d 907,RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 7731, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1417 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant and Cross-Appellee,v.SUMMIT MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation; Alto ProductsCorporation, a corporation; Sanford Landa, an individual;Dorothy Landa, an individual; Tension Envelope Corporation;a corporation; Altran Corporation, a corporation; andAcme Co

OPINION OF THE COURT COWEN, Circuit Judge. Before us are four appeals arising out of an action initiated by Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) against, inter alia, Altran Corporation (“Altran”), alleging copyright, trademark, and unfair competition violations, and an ensuing counterclaim filed by Al-tran against Ford for racketeering. Prior to trial, the district court dismissed Alton's counterclaim and