Legal Opinion

Picone v. Shire U.S. Inc. (Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Class Action)

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided October 9, 2020No. 1:16-cv-12396Unknown

1Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS * * * * * In re INTUNIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION Civil Action Nos. 1:16-cv-12653-ADB * (Both Direct and Indirect Cases) 1:16-cv-12396-ADB * * * * * REVISED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BURROUGHS, D.J. This “pay-for-delay” or “reverse settlement” case arises from an alleged anticompetitive agreement made between the brand and generic manufacturers of Intuniv, a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). Defendants Shire LLC and Shire U.S., Inc. (collectively, “Shire”) manufacture…

2Cases cited64 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996

59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API