Legal Opinion

In Re Relafen Antitrust Litigation

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided October 1, 2003No. CIV.A. 01-12239-WGYPublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YOUNG, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case presents a consolidated action against Smithkline Beecham Corporation and Glaxosmithkline P.L.C. (collectively “Smithkline”) for various violations of the antitrust laws with respect to its patent for the chemical compound known as nabume-tone, which it sells commercially as “Relafen.” Smithkline moves to dismiss all claims against it as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and the plaintiffs, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral es-toppel, move to preclude Smithkline from “re-litigating” issues they claim were…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Commissioner v. SunnenSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  3. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. In re Niaspan Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. In re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004
  3. In re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003
  4. In re NexiumDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013
  5. In Re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004

14 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