Legal Opinion
Apotex, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 8, 2017No. CIVIL ACTION No. 2:06-cv-2768, CIVIL ACTION No. 2:10-cv-5164, CIVIL ACTION No. 2:09-cv-3956, CIVIL ACTION No. 2:09-cv-3820PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Goldberg, District Judge
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, 570 U.S. 136, 133 S.Ct. 2223, 186 L.Ed.2d 343 (2013), the Supreme Court wrestled .with the complexities of how a reverse-payment patent litigation settle*607ment fits within an antitrust context. Ultimately concluding that a rule of reason analysis applies, the - Court stressed that the “structuring of the present rule-of-reason antitrust litigation” must be left to the trial court. This Opinion sets forth such a structure where the relevant patent is found to be invalid and not infringed several years after the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Comp., D/B/A Allegheny Power Allegheny Power System, Incorporated Duquesne Light Company Dqe, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- United States v. Francis P. Long, A/K/A "Red", John Hackett, A/K/A "Jack"Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- IN RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATIONDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2022
- In Re Glumetza Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2021
- In Re: Opana ER Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2022
- Picone v. Shire U.S. Inc. (Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Class Action)District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2020
- Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive CorporationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2021