Legal Opinion
Invamed, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 1, 1998No. 98 Civ. 0861(RWS)PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendants Bernard C. Sherman (“Sherman”), Apotex Holdings Inc. (“Holdings”), Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”), and Sherman Delaware, Inc. (“Sherman Delaware”) (collectively, the “Affiliates”) have moved for partial dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Specifically, the Affiliates have moved to dismiss the following claims against them: (1) monopolization, attempt to monopolize, and conspiracy to monopolize, in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15…
2Cases cited56 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Jung v. Association of American Medical CollegesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- In Re Digital Music Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- In Re Processed Egg Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commercial Data Servers, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATIONDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- In re Zinc Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2016
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.