Legal Opinion
In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 18, 2012No. Civil Action No. 08-CV-3301PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs A.F. of L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan (“AFL”), IBEW-NECA Local 505 Health & Welfare Plan (“IBEW”), Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund (“Painters”), and Andrea Kehoe (“Kehoe”), collectively “Indirect Purchasers,” are indirect purchasers of the prescription drug Flonase and its generic equivalent. Flonase is the brand-name version of fluticasone propionate (“FP”) — a steroid nasal spray produced by Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation, doing business as GlaxoSmithKline PLC (“GSK”). Indirect Purchasers allege…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- O'Shea v. LittletonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- In re Niaspan Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- Dial Corp. v. News Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013
- In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- Medical Mutual of Ohio v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.