Legal Opinion
Biovail Corp. International v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 1, 1999No. Civ.A. 98-1434(MTB)PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BARRY, District Judge. ■
Biovail Corporation International (“Bio-vail” or “plaintiff’) filed a five-count complaint with this court on April 27, 1998. This matter comes before the court on a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by defendants Hoechst Ak-tiengesellschaft (“Hoechst AG”), Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (“HMRI”), Hoechst Marion Roussel North America, Inc., and Carderm Capital L.P. (“Carderm”) (collectively as “Hoechst defendants”). Defendants Horst Waesche (“Waesche”), Daniel Camus (“Camus”), Richard J. Markham…
2Cases cited64 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Cruz v. BetoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. Grinnell Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- In Re K-Dur Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2004
- In Re Cardizem CD Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2000
- In re Niaspan Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- RNC Systems, Inc. v. Modern Technology Group, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2012
- Blake v. Professional Coin Grading ServiceDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2012
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.