Legal Opinion
In Re Brimonidine Patent Litigation
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Decided August 20, 2007No. MDL-1866PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
507 F.Supp.2d 1381 (2007)
In re BRIMONIDINE PATENT LITIGATION.
Allergan, Inc.
v.
Exela Pharmsci, Inc., et al.
Allergan, Inc.
v.
Apotex, Inc., et al.
No. MDL-1866.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
August 20, 2007.
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the entire Panel[*]: Common plaintiff Allergan, Inc., has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the District of Delaware. This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in the Central District of California and the District of Delaware, respectively. Responding defendants[1] oppose centralization.
On the basis of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In Re Metoprolol Succinate Patent Lit.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2004
- Allergan, Inc. v. Exela Pharmsci, Inc.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2007
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2009
- In Re ALFUZOSIN HYDROCHLORIDE PATENT LITIGATIONUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2008
- In Re Armodafinil Patent LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2010
- In Re: Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2008
- Forest Laboratories Inc. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.