Cases

489 F.Supp.2d 759 (2007) Karen CLARK, Plaintiff v. SANOFI-SYNTHELABO, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:05CV-344-S. United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, at Louisville. March 15, 2007. *760 Samuel G. Hayward, Adams, Hayward & Welsh, Louisville, KY, for Plaintiff. Clay M. Stevens, Leslie M. Cronen, Thompson Mil

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,

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 11-577V Filed: May 24, 2019 To be Published ************************* D.G., * * Petitioner, *

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant QUALITY CARTRIDGES, INC., JOHN DOES, 1-20, BLUE TRADING LLC, EXPRINT INTERNATIONAL, INC., LD PRODUCTS, INC., PRINTRONIC CORPORATION, TESEN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) CO. LTD., BENIGNO ADEVA AND HIS

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant QUALITY CARTRIDGES, INC., JOHN DOES, 1-20, BLUE TRADING LLC, EXPRINT INTERNATIONAL, INC., LD PRODUCTS, INC., PRINTRONIC CORPORATION, TESEN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) CO. LTD., BENIGNO ADEVA AND HIS

MEMORANDUM OPINION HON. LEONARD P. STARK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION These- are patent infringement actions brought by Novartis AG (“NAG”), Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“NPC”), Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation (“Mitsubishi”), and Mitsui Sugar Co., Ltd. (“Mitsui”) under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Plaintiffs separately filed suit against Defendants Actavis, Inc.

MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this consolidated patent infringement action, plaintiffs Pfizer Inc., Warner-Lambert Company, L.L.C., C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., and Northwestern University (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) allege that pharmaceutical products proposed by defendants Actavis Elizabeth, L.L.C., Actavis, Inc., Alphapharm

675 F.3d 1337 (2012) In re MSTG, INC., Petitioner. Misc. No. 996. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. April 9, 2012. *1339 Christopher J. Lee, Niro, Haller & Niro, of Chicago, IL, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion to stay for petitioner-movant. David T. Pritikin, Sidley Austin LLP, of Chicago, IL, f

OPINION AND ORDER KENNETH A. MARRA, District Judge. This cause is before the Court upon Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (DE 45). The Court has reviewed the briefs and the record, and is otherwise advised in the premises. I. Background This case involves competing claims of ownership and inventorship of a dental implant syst

Opinion LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, District Judge. Lead Plaintiff Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana (“TRSL”) brings this action on behalf of a putative class of investors (“Plaintiffs”) who purchased or acquired Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000, and October 19, 2005 (the “Class Period”), against Pfizer and corporate officers Henry McKinnell, John LaMattina, Karen Katen, Joseph Feczko, and

636 F.Supp.2d 1045 (2009) James P. DeFAZIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOLLISTER, INC., et al., Defendants. Nos. CIV. 04-1358 WBS GGH, 05-0559 WBS GGH, 05-1726 WBS GGH. United States District Court, E.D. California. June 29, 2009. *1049 Scottlynn J. Hubbard IV, Lynn Hubbard III, Law Offices of Lynn Hubbard, Chico, CA, James M. Crawfo

726 F.Supp.2d 604 (2010) MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ARTHREX, INC., Defendant. Case No. 3:09-cv-00078. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division. June 3, 2010. *610 Michael Edward Whitham, Philana Shell Handler, Robert Neal Cook, Whitham, Curtis & Christofferson & Cook, P

EFiled: Jun 02 2022 10:29AM EDT Transaction ID 67683224 Case No. 2020-1061-JTL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STEWART N. GOLDSTEIN, individually and ) on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff,

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

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-3505 _____________ ERNEST PORTER, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary for Department of Corrections; ROBERT GILMORE; Super. for SCI Greene _____________

86 F.Supp.2d 305 (2000) PACO SPORT, LTD., Plaintiff, v. PACO RABANNE PARFUMS, Defendant. No. 96 Civ. 1408(JES). United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 17, 2000. *306 Rubin Ferziger, New York City, for plaintiff. John T. Jacobs, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff. Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein, New Yor

OPINION OF THE COURT FISHER, Circuit Judge. A pharmaceutical company holding the patent on a drug sues the manufacturer of a generic version of that drug for patent infringement. The patent-holder and the generic manufacturer later settle, with the former paying the latter not to produce a generic until the patents at issue expire. In FTC v. Actav

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 24-2415, 24-2450 & 24-2506 ______________ ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE AND PISTOL CLUBS, INC.; BLAKE ELLMAN; MARC WEINBERG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY; SUPERINTENDENT NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE; OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE CHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE PARK RIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT

ACCEPTED 15-25-00207-CV Cause No. _________ FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/14/2025 4:30 PM I

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YOUNG, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION A group of wholesale drug distributors (the “Direct Purchasers”) and health and welfare benefit funds (the “End-Payors” 1) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, brings this multidistrict, putative class action against AstraZeneca AB, Akt