Legal Opinion
In Re Gabapentin Patent Litigation
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided August 27, 2009No. Master Civil Action No. 00-2931. C.A. Nos. 00-CV-2931 (FSH), 00-CV-3522 (FSH). MDL Docket No. 1384PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HOCHBERG, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ (collectively, “Warner-Lambert”) Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses and to Dismiss Certain Counterclaims of Purepac Defendants (Docket #431), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 12(f). 1 The Court has considered the briefs of the parties, and oral argument held on April 22, 2009.
I. Background And Procedural Posture
A detailed account of the factual and procedural backdrop to this case is set forth in the Opinion issued by this Court today, deciding Plaintiffs’ separate, though similar, Motion to…
2Cases cited74 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Phillips v. County of AlleghenyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
- In Re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation. P. Gregory Buchanan, Jacob Turner and Ronald AbramoffCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., C/o Ct Corporation Systems Registered AgentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- In re Niaspan Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. WalshDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2010
- In re Remicade Antitrust Litig.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2018
- Chromadex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2017
- In re Flonase Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.