Cases

ACCEPTED 15-25-00088-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/20/2025 6:36 PM

MEMORANDUM OPINION FARNAN, District Judge. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca UK Limited, IPR Pharmaceuti*393cals Inc. and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action against several different generic drug manufacturers, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Par P

MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge. Plaintiff AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (“AstraZeneca”) holds new drug applications for SEROQUEL® (“Seroquel”) and SEROQUEL XR® (“Seroquel XR”), antipsychotic drugs used te treat serious psychological disorders such as schizophrenia. Since AstraZeneca first obtained approval to market these drug

OPINION Sue L. Robinson, Senior District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This consolidated case arises out of the filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) by defendants Sigmap-harm Laboratories, LLC (“Sigmapharm”); Breckenridge : Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Breckenridge”); Hikma. Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, PLC, and West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corporation (collectively, “Hi

490 F.Supp.2d 368 (2007) ASTRAZENECA AB, et al, Plaintiffs, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. Defendants. In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation. No. 00 CIV. 7597(BSJ), 01 CIV. 2998(BSJ), M-21-81 (BSJ), MDL 1291. United States District Court, S.D. New York. May 25, 2007. *369 *370 Errol B. Taylor, F

726 F.Supp.2d 778 (2010) FLEXSYS AMERICA LP, Plaintiff, v. KUMHO TIRE U.S.A., INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 5:05CV156. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. July 15, 2010. *781 John C. Fairweather, Amanda M. Leffler, Lisa S. Delgrosso, Brouse McDowell, David C. Mine, Akron, OH, Robert M. Masters, Bhaskar

Denied and Opinion filed February 12, 2026 In The Fifteenth Court of Appeals NO. 15-25-00150-CV IN RE COLOSSUSBETS LIMITED; ROOK TX, LP; ROOK GP, LLC; QAWI AND QUDDUS, INC; LOTTERY NOW, INC. Original Proceeding from the Business Court Division 3A Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 25-BC03A-0007

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice the complaint filed by Dr. George Pieezenik, on the ground that he failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Dr. Pi-eezenik appeals that dismissal. He also appeals the dismissal of his charge of copyright infringement by the defendants’ quotation from his classroom lecture; he

469 F.Supp.2d 835 (2006) STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.; Alpharma USPD, Inc.; Apothecon, Inc.; Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Astrazeneca LP; Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Aventis. Behring LLC n/k/a/ ZLB Behring LLC; Barr Laboratories, Inc.; Baxter Healthcare Corporation; Bayer Corporation; Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim Roxane, Inc. f/k/a Roxane Laborator

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Julia Barnett and Tim McCurty, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) C.A. No.: N20C-12-076 PEL v. ) ) Boston Scientific Corporation ) (D/B/A Mansfield Scientific, Inc.) ) And Microvasive, Inc.,

ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of George Pieczen-ik’s unopposed motion to dismiss Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. et al. from this appeal, It Is Ordered That: The motion is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.

ON MOTION PER CURIAM. ORDER The Defendants-Appellees move to dismiss George Pieczenik’s appeals. Pieczen-ik opposes. Pieczenik has appealed from orders denying his motion “in limine to expunge plaintiffs copyright lecture proffered by defendants’ counsel and to charge them with digital copyright infringement,” denying his motion for mediation, and his motion fo

Keywords: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; RCFC 12(b)(6); Timber Sale Contract; Plausible Allegation of Entitlement to Relief. OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge. This breach-of-contract case is before the Court on the government’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC

OPINION IRENAS, Senior District Judge: These two lawsuits, having been removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey by Defendants Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., come before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motions to Remand. Because the motions raise the same question of law and have highly similar factual circumstances, the Court considers them together for purposes of efficiency. I

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

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ACORDA THERAPEUTICS INC., ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MYLAN INC., Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2015-1456 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for th

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION et al., Civil Action No. 24-2428 (TJK) Defendants, v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION, Intervenor-Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION On August

MEMORANDUM KEARNEY, District Judge As our Court of Appeals confirmed over twenty-five years ago, companies with no business ties or contacts in Pennsylvania but who choose to register as a foreign corporation in Pennsylvania consent to this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over them. Two years ago, the Supreme Court again evaluated the constitutionally permissible exercise of general and specific

ORDER JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, United States District Judge BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Innocutis Holdings, LLC (“Innocutis”) and Cipher Pharmaceuticals US LLC (“Cipher”) (collectively “Innocutis Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 24), which the Plaintiff opposed (Dkt. 25). Upon consideration, the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Bayer Schering Pharma AG and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (collectively, “Bayer”) appeal from two judgments of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the first case, the court dismissed Bayer’s patent infringeme