Legal Opinion

Time Insurance v. Astrazeneca AB

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided October 1, 2014No. Civil Action No. 14-4149PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

McHUGH, District Judge.

I. Factual Background

This is an antitrust action brought under a variety of state statutes in which the issue presently before me is the propriety of federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are health insurance companies who ultimately paid for Nexium prescriptions purchased by individuals who maintained insurance coverage. Defendants are Astrazeneea, the patent-holding pharmaceutical company that produces name-brand Nexium, as well as three generic drug manufacturers who sought to produce generic Nexium.

Under the regulatory framework for pharmaceuticals, companies…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Gunn v. MintonSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  5. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. American Sales Co. v. Warner Chilcott Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2016
  2. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
  3. In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2015
  4. In Re: Loestrin 24 FE v.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API