Legal Opinion
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 29, 2004No. Civil Action Nos. 99-CV-4304, 00-CV-4888, 01-CV-0159, 01-CV-2169, 99-CV-2926, 00-CV-5953, 02-CV-1484, 00-CV-1393, 00-CV-6464, 01-CV-2602, 01-CV-1027, 01-CV- 3364, 02-CV-8493, 01-CV-2981, 03-CV-6117, 03-CV-3365PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SURRICK, District Judge.
Presently before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss filed by SmithKline Beec-ham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham, P.L.C., Beecham Group, P.L.C. and Glax-oSmithKline, P.L.C. (“SmithKline”), (Doc. Nos.112, 124), and the Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike filed by PAR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Pentech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“PAR/Pentech”), (Doc. No. 117). SmithKline and PAR/Pentech have moved to dismiss certain counterclaims made by Defendants Apotex Corporation, Apotex, Inc., and Torpharm, Inc. (“Torpharm”). After the parties briefed these Motions,…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company and Nu-Car Carriers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- Kost v. KozakiewiczCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- Abbott Laboratories v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2006
- In Re Gabapentin Patent LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2009
- In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- Forst v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.