Legal Opinion
Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 26, 2004No. 02 Civ.2255(RWS)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
The defendants Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, “Apotex”) have moved pursuant to Rules 37(a)(2) and 37(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to compel plaintiffs Sanofi-Synthelabo, Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership (collectively, “Sanofi”) to (1) produce all correspondence after November 4,1988, in unredacted form, bearing on the subject matter of why Sanofi decided to cancel original claims 6-9 in the prosecution of patent application 07/155,550, which matured into U.S. Patent 4,847,265…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. NoblesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- United States v. Paul A. BilzerianCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Sperry v. Florida Ex Rel. Florida BarSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated September 15, 1983 Marc Rich & Co. A.G., Intervenor-Appellant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- In Re Claus Von Bulow, Martha Von Bulow, by Her Next Friends Alexander Auersperg, and Annie Laurie Auersperg-Kneissl v. Claus Von BulowCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Condit v. DunneDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- 1050 Tenants Corp. v. LapidusNew York Supreme Court · 2006
- Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- ICM Controls Corp. v. Honeywell International, Inc.District Court, N.D. New York · 2020
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.