Cases

OPINION AND ORDER DELGADO-HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge. Plaintiff Taymari Delgado-Echevarria initiated this action against her former employer, AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical .LP, complaining of age and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, interference with a protected leave of absence, retaliation, tortious conduct, and unjust discharge under various federal and Puer-to Rico statutes.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States Distinct Judge This action arising under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Dkt. 22. The plaintiffs, AstraZ-eneca Pharmaceuticals LP and IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“AstraZene

MEMORANDUM ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge. Plaintiff Deborah Brangman brings suit against Defendants AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP (“AstraZeneca”). Brangman alleges that AstraZeneca subjected her to disparate treatment on the basis of her race and gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VH’’), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Count I), and t

Case: 24-2325 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 07/09/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ WYETH LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ASTRAZENECA AB, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2024-2325 ______________________ Appe

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge. Plaintiff Kay Patteson first consulted Dr. John Maloney in May 2006, complaining of anxiety, depression, chronic insomnia, and serious alcohol abuse and dependence. Having evaluated Patteson’s symptoms, Maloney began prescribing Seroquel — a second-generation antipsychotic drug manufactured by Defendant AstraZeneca — to treat her. insomnia. Malone

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This appeal , arises from the first pharmaceutical-settlement antitrust action tried before a jury since the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2223, 186 L.Ed.2d 343 (2013). The jury found that although the plaintiffs had proved an antitrust violation in the form of a large, and unjustified reverse payment from AstraZeneca to Ranbaxy, the plaintiffs had not shown that they

REDACTED OPINION (PUBLIC) BUMB, District Judge. Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION.333 II. BACKGROUND. CO CO A. The Asserted Claims of the '834 Patent. CO CO B. Markman Hearing. CO CO ^ C. Federal Circuit Decision. CO CO D. Remand Proceedings. CO CO E. Defendants’ Sterilization Process

PARKER, Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the holding of the main opinion. I do agree that the Alabama Medicaid Agency (“the AMA”) cannot claim lack of knowledge that the average wholesale price (“AWP”) was not a true average wholesale price paid, as evidenced by the fact that the AMA’s reimbursement formula for pharmacies— AWP - 10% — reduced the AWP. This formula is the product in large part of st

605 F.Supp.2d 669 (2009) Kristin BAUM, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA LP, Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:2007-cv-90. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. March 31, 2009. *670 John R. Linkosky, Carnegie, PA, Joseph E. Fieschko, Jr., Fieschko & Associates, Inc., Joseph

602 F.3d 1245 (2010) Linda GUINN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca PLC, Defendants-Appellees. No. 09-11104. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. April 6, 2010. *1247 Kenneth Camp Bailey, Fletcher V. Trammell, Robert W. Cowan, Bailey Perrin Bailey, LLP

598 F.Supp.2d 1271 (2009) David HALLER, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 6:07-cv-15733-Orl-22DAB. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. February 6, 2009. *1272 F. Kenneth Bailey, Jr., Fletcher Vines Trammell, K. Camp Bailey, Michael W. Perrin, Robert W. Cowan, Bail

SEITZ, Justice: I. INTRODUCTION A group of New York-based third party payor health insurers (“TPPs”) that provide prescription drug benefits to union members appeal from a Superior Court judgment dismissing with prejudice their second amended complaint. At issue are claims brought by the TPPs under various state consumer fraud laws against AstraZ-eneca Phar

500 F.Supp.2d 736 (2007) Carolyn REECE, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP; Astrazeneca LP., Defendants. No. C-1-05-322. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. June 25, 2007. *737 *738 Frank Woodson, Melissa A. Prickett, Matthew E. Munson, Beasley, Allen, Crow, <

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

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: I. These cases involve payments made by health insurers1 for the prescription drug Seroquel, an antipsychotic medication2 manufactured and marketed in the United States by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (“AstraZeneca”). Seroquel has received Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval for the treatment of schizophrenia a

744 F.Supp.2d 590 (2010) Jim HOOD, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex rel. the State of Mississippi, Plaintiff, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:10CV104-8A-JAD. United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division. October 7, 2010. *593 Fletcher V. Trammell, Bail

(2008) ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTCALS LP, et al., Plaintiff, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, et al., Defendant. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Plaintiff, v. Sandoz, Inc., Defendant. Civil Action No. 05-5333 (JAP). Nos. 06-1528 (JAP), 07-3001, 07-1632 (JAP). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. July 1, 2008. OPINION JOEL A. PISA

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (“AstraZeneca”) appeals from the judgment of the district court, entered after a lengthy bench trial, of liability for unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A (“Chapter 93A”). In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 491 F.Supp.2d 20 (D.Mass.2007). The district court found that AstraZeneca had caused

(2008) IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 68 & Participating Employers Health & Welfare Funds, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTCALS LP, et al., Defendants. Case No. 6:07-cv-5000-0r1-22DAB. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. November 4, 2008. ORDER ANNE C. CONWAY, District Judge. This cause comes before