Legal Opinion

Hollander v. RANBAXY LABORATORIES INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided July 18, 2011No. Civil Action 10-793PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Stern v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  3. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. StevensSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  5. 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

  1. United States ex rel. Ryan v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API