Legal Opinion

Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 2, 2011No. Civil Action Nos. 08-3149, 08-3301, 09-1638PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge.

Flonase is a steroid nasal spray containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient fluticasone propionate (“FP”) produced by Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation, doing business as GlaxoSmithKline PLC (“GSK”).1 Until recently, Flonase was one of the nation’s top-selling drugs. Three different suits have been filed against GSK, alleging various antitrust violations stemming from GSK’s conduct delaying the entry of generic FP nasal *302sprays into the market. The three suits are brought by: (1) direct purchasers of Flonase in American Sales Co., Inc. v.…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
  5. United Mine Workers v. PenningtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Flonase Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API