Legal Opinion
King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 28, 2015No. Civil Action Nos. 2:06-cv-1797, 2:06-cv-1833, 2:06-cv-2768, 2:08-cv-2141PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GOLDBERG, District Judge.
Presently before me are several motions for summary judgment arising out of the standards recently articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2223, 186 L.Ed.2d 343 (2013). These motions are brought under the consolidated antitrust lawsuits referred to as the In re Modafinil Litigation, which centers around four “reverse-payment” settlement agreements between a pharmaceutical company and several generic drug manufacturers.1
Defendants argue that Actavis requires a plaintiff…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- 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
- In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
- In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- Apotex, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.