Legal Opinion

In Re Armodafinil Patent Litigation

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided December 8, 2010No. MDL 2200PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the Panel * : Plaintiffs Cephalon, Inc., and Cephalon France have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the District of Delaware. This litigation currently consists of eight actions: seven in the District of Delaware and one in the Southern District of Florida, as listed on Schedule A. Responding defendants Apotex, Inc., and Apotex Corp. (collectively Apotex) oppose centralization.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these eight actions involve common questions of fact, and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re Brimonidine Patent LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2007

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Forest Laboratories Inc. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012
  2. In re Kerydin (Tavaborole) Topical Solution 5% Patent Litig.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API