Hollander v. RANBAXY LABORATORIES INC.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF 35 U.S.C. § 292(b)
BAYLSON, District Judge.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Bentley A. Hollander (“Hollander”) initiated this qui tam action against Defendant Ranbaxy Laboratories, Inc. (“Ranbaxy”) for alleged violations of the False Marking Statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292. Section 292 penalizes the marking of products with false or expired patent numbers and allows “[a]ny person” to sue for the statutory penalty. See § 292(a), (b). The Court previously denied Ranbaxy’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and Hollander’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Stern v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. StevensSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- United States Ex Rel. Marcus v. HessSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States ex rel. Ryan v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014