Legal Opinion
Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 29, 2014No. Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-2141PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GOLDBERG, District Judge.
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2223, 186 L.Ed.2d 343 (2013), the Supreme Court attempted to provide trial courts with guidance regarding the proper factors to be considered in a “reverse payment”1 antitrust trial. In doing so, the court stated that it is “normally not necessary to litigate patent validity to answer the antitrust question.” Id. at 2236.
In the reverse payment antitrust case before me, such litigation has already occurred wherein the patent in question (RE '516) was found invalid and procured *529through…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Powell v. McCormackSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Arizonans for Official English v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Reichard v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2018
- Apotex, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
- Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- United States v. SHARPEDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2021