Cases

Case: 23-2434 Document: 78 Page: 1 Filed: 09/23/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BAYER PHARMA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Appellant v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., INVAGEN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Appellees ______________________ 2023-2434 __

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

(2008) Lisa SYKES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendant. Action No. 3:07-CV-660. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. February 12, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES R. SPENCER, Chief Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 90) by

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 20-1066 JOHN R. BORZILLERI, M.D., Relator, Plaintiff, Appellant, UNITED STATES, ex rel. JOHN R. BORZILLERI, M.D., Plaintiff, Appellee, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defend

2020 IL 125020 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket Nos. 125020, 125021) CHRISTY RIOS et al., Appellees, v. BAYER CORPORATION et al., Appellants.—NICHOLE HAMBY et al., Appellees, v. BAYER CORPORATION et al., Appe

741 F.Supp.2d 541 (2010) BAYER SCHERA PHARMA AG and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Plaintiffs, v. SANDOZ, INC., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Watson Laboratories, Inc., Defendants. No. 08 Civ. 03710 (PGG). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 28, 2010. *542 Adam K. Mortara, Paul J. Skiermont, Peter B

664 F.Supp.2d 711 (2009) Jan HARRIS, et al, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 4:07-cv-3938. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. September 28, 2009. *715 Scott David Newar, Attorney at Law, Houston, TX, for Pla

391 F.Supp.2d 1148 (2005) ALPHAMED PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., Plaintiff, v. ARRIVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a Alphaone Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Defendants. No. 03-20078-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. Filed January 14, 2003. January 5, 2005. *1149

36 A.3d 589 (2012) John GIBBS, II, as Husband of Brenda Lee Gibbs, Deceased, Respondent v. BAYER CORPORATION, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., f/k/a Berlex, Inc., f/k/a Berlex Laboratories, Inc. on its own behalf and as successor by merger to Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Bayer Pharma AG, f/k/a Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Petitioners. No. 117 EM 2011. Supreme Court of

ORDER PER CURIAM. AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2012, as Petitioners’ Amended Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction replaced the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction, the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DISMISSED. Additionally, the Motion for Leave t

36 A.3d 589 (2012) Laura KAPLAN, Respondent v. BAYER CORPORATION, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., f/k/a Berlex, Inc., f/k/a Berlex Laboratories, Inc. on Its Own Behalf and as Successor by Merger to Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Bayer Pharma AG, f/k/a Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Petitioners. No. 118 EM 2011. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Febr

ORDER PER CURIAM. AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2012, as Petitioners’ Amended Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction replaced the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction, the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DISMISSED. Additionally,

ORDER PER CURIAM. AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2012, as Petitioners’ Amended Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction replaced the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction, the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DISMISSED. Additionally, the Motion for Leave t

ORDER PER CURIAM. AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2012, as Petitioners’ Amended Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction replaced the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction, the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DISMISSED. Additionally, the Motion for Leave t

ORDER PER CURIAM. AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2012, as Petitioners’ Amended Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction replaced the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction, the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DISMISSED. Additionally, the Motion for Leave t

36 A.3d 587 (2012) Rachel WHALEN, Respondent v. BAYER CORPORATION, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., f/k/a Berlex, Inc., f/k/a. Berlex Laboratories, Inc. on its own Behalf and as Successor by Merger to Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Bayer Pharma AG, f/k/a Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Petitioners. No. 123 EM 2011. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Fe

ORDER PER CURIAM. AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2012, as Petitioners’ Amended Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction replaced the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdic*589tion, the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary J

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge. Table of Contents I. Summary of Findings and Conclusions.......................................35 II. Background..............................................................36 A. Overview of Patented Technology..........................:.......36 B. Accused Instruments........

MEMORANDUM CURTIS L. COLLIER, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s (“Novartis”) motion for summary judgment (Court *1226File No. 36). Plaintiffs Charlotte Payne and Brent Payne (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) claim Mrs. Payne’s condition, osteonecrosis of the jaw, was caused by two drugs m

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 06-1427 IN RE FACTOR VIII OR IX CONCENTRATE BLOOD PRODUCTS LITIGATION DOMENICO GULLONE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAYER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________ Appeal from the