Legal Opinion
In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided January 24, 2014No. 12-cv-995 (WHW)PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALLS, Senior District Judge.
This Court dismissed the complaint of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. and King Drug Company of Florence, Inc. for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Third Circuit remanded the case to this Court in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2223, 186 L.Ed.2d 343 (2013). The Court affirms its order of dismissal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”) sells Lamictal Tablets and Lamictal Chewables, which treat…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- North River Insurance Company v. Cigna Reinsurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Jose Rolo v. City Investing Company Liquidating TrustCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
- In re NexiumDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013
- In Re K-Dur Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In re Niaspan Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- King Drug Co of Florence Inc v. Smithkline Beecham CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- In re Aggrenox Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2015
- United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
- King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.