Cases

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs, suing on behalf of a putative class of GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) employees who invested in two company retirement savings plans (“Plans”),1 appeal from *174the dismissal of their claims under § 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), see 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Plaintiffs charge de

Case: 18-1976 Document: 244 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (CORK) LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2018-1976, 2018-2023

Case: 18-1976 Document: 244 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (CORK) LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2018-1976, 2018-2023

Case: 18-1976 Document: 187 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (CORK) LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2018-1976, 2018-2023 ________

DAVIS, Justice: This matter involves two consolidated petitions for writs of prohibition filed under the original jurisdiction of this Court. The petition filed in Case No. 13-0086 was brought by the defendants in seven consolidated eases pending before the Circuit Court of Mason County; 1 and the petition in Case No. 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RUFE, District Judge. The seventeen above-captioned individual actions have been transferred to a multidistrict' litigation (“MDL”) docket established1 to consolidate, for -purposes of coordinated pretrial proceedings, cases in federal court that “arise from allegations that certain diabetes drugs manufactured by [Defendant SmithKlineBeecham Corp.

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs sued defendants GlaxoSmithK-line PLC (“GSK”), Dr. Jean-Pierre Gamier, Julian Heslop, Simon Bicknell, and David Stout for securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 for non-disclosure of alleged cardiovascular risks associated with the drug Avandia. They now appeal the dismissal of them complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a ruling we review de novo

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs sued defendants GlaxoSmithK-line PLC (“GSK”), Dr. Jean-Pierre Gamier, Julian Heslop, Simon Bicknell, and David Stout for securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 for non-disclosure of alleged cardiovascular risks associated with the drug Avandia. They now appeal the dismissal of them complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a ruling we review de novo

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA MICHELLE HIMES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOMATICS, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. S273887 Ninth Circuit 21-55517 Central District of California 2:17-cv-06686-RGK-JC June 20, 2024 Justice Grob

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE HIMES; MARCIA No. 21-55517 BENJAMIN; DANIEL BENJAMIN, individually, and on behalf of all D.C. No. others similarly situated, 2:17-cv-06686- Plaintiffs-Appellants, RGK-JC and ORDER JOSE RIERA; DEBORAH CHASE; CERTIFYING DIANE SCURRAH,

[J-7A-2025 and J-7B-2025] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. JENNIFER SANTIAGO AND SAMUEL : No. 24 EAP 2023 SANTIAGO, : : Appeal from the Order of the Appellees : Superior Court entered on March 21,

J-A26009-22 J-A26010-22 2023 PA SUPER 47 JENNIFER SANTIAGO AND SAMUEL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTIAGO : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : PHILLY TRAMPOLINE PARK, LLC I/P/A : SKY ZONE, D/B/A SKY ZONE : TRAMPOLINE PARK D/B/A SKY ZONE : PHILADELPHIA, SKY ZONE : PHILADELPHIA,

Case: 19-1749 Document: 87 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ IMMUNEX CORPORATION, Appellant v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, GENZYME CORPORATION, REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Cross-Appellants ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS F. DENNIS SAYLOR IV, District Judge. This is an action for a declaratory judgment that plaintiff EMC Corporation has not infringed three patents owned by defendant Parallel Iron, LLC. This is the second-filed of two suits between plaintiff and defendant concerning these three patents. One day before this suit was filed, Parallel Iron sued EM

MEMORANDUM OPINION SAVAGE, District Judge. As it did in earlier pharmaceutical product liability cases involving the drug Paxil that it had removed from the state court, the defendant GlaxoSmithKline, LLC ("LLC") opposes the plaintiffs’ motions to remand these cases. It challenges the determination in Brewer v. SmithKline Beacham Corp., 774 F.Supp.2d 720 (E.D.Pa. Mar.24, 2011) that, fo

41 So.3d 15 (2009) ASTRAZENECA LP and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. STATE of Alabama. AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. State of Alabama. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline v. State of Alabama. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. State of Alabama. 1071439, 1071440, 1071704 and 1071759. Supreme Court of Alabama.

414 F.Supp.2d 1023 (2006) Debra VANDERWERF, Individually and as Next Friend for Riley and Tanner Vanderwerf, Minors, and Estate of William K. Vanderwerf, Plaintiffs, v. SMITHKLINEBEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants. No. Civ.A. 05-2271-KHV. United States District Court, D. Kansas. January 5, 2006.

529 F.Supp.2d 1294 (2008) Debra VANDERWERF, Individually and as Next Friend for Riley and Tanner Vanderwerf, Minors, and Estate of William K. Vanderwerf, Plaintiffs, v. SMITHKLINEBEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, and Eli Lilly and Company, Defendants. Civil Action No. 05-2271-KHV. United States District Court, D. Kansas. January 9, 2008.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rothbeind (2023 NY Slip Op 00014) HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rothbeind 2023 NY Slip Op 00014 Decided on January 5, 2023 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judic

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. On August 24, 2012, after a thirteen day trial and approximately three full days of deliberation, a jury in this patent case reached a verdict. See ECF No. 1931. Samsung now seeks judgment as a matter of law to overturn certain of the jury’s findings. In the alternative, Samsung moves