Legal Opinion
Eon Laboratories, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided December 23, 2003No. CIV.A. 03-10506-WGYPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YOUNG, Chief Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
After hearing oral argument on October 23, 2003, this Court stated its intent to dismiss the federal antitrust claims asserted by the plaintiff, Eon Laboratories, Inc. (“Eon”), as compulsory counterclaims that were not raised in the underlying patent infringement action. See Hr’g Tr. of 10/23/03, at 8. This memorandum and order sets forth the Court’s analysis and clarifies its decision.
II. BACKGROUND
This is a consolidated action against SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Beecham Group PLC, and GlaxoSmithKline PLC (collectively “SmithKline”)…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Alan Aulson Et Ux. Maureen Aulson v. Charles BlanchardCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Southern Construction Co. v. PickardSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Revere Copper and Brass Incorporated v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, and Third-Party v. George A. Fuller Company, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In Re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004
- In Re Flonase Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- In Re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2005
- Amphastar Pharm., Inc. v. Momenta Pharm., Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2018
- M.D. Moody & Sons, Inc. v. Dockside Marine Contractors, Inc.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.