Legal Opinion

In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser & Antitrust Consumer Litigation

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided March 22, 2016No. Civ. No. 12-5120 (WHW)(CLW)PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*731OPINION

Walls, Senior District Judge

This putative class action concerns the legality of a settlement between two pharmaceutical. companies. Plaintiffs are indirect purchasers of the drug lamotrigine, known by its brand name Lamictal, whieh was the subject of patent litigation between the Defendant pharmaceutical companies. Plaintiffs allege that the terms of the litigation settlement and the resulting sales of branded and generic versions of Lamictal violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Defendants move ■ to dismiss on - various grounds, including that Plaintiffs’…

2Cases cited106 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  4. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. BEAMAN v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2024
  2. BIGGINS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICEDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2025
  3. IN RE: FRAGRANCE INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATIONDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2025
  4. J.M. v. SUMMIT CITY BOARD OF EDUCATIONDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2020
  5. LIU v. LUDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2025

8 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