Legal Opinion

In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation

District Court, N.D. California

Decided May 5, 2015No. Case No. 14-md-02521-WHOPublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*1160ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTS

Re: Dkt. No. 139

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

This case concerns the alleged antitrust and anticompetitive impact of a July 2012 settlement agreement between defendants Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teikoku Seiya-ku Co., Teikoku Pharma USA (collectively “Endo defendants”) and defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively “defendants”), which terminated Watson’s patent litigation lawsuit against the Endo defendants in exchange for the provision of brand-name…

2Cases cited57 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Goshen v. Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
  5. Paschall's, Inc. v. DozierTennessee Supreme Court · 1966

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 2017
  2. In re Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016
  3. In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2017
  4. In re Generic Pharm. Pricing Antitrust Litig.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
  5. In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois · 2019

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

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

Powered by the Exa API