Legal Opinion
In Re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided July 16, 2012No. 10-2077, 10-2078, 10-2079, 10-4571PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
In this appeal, we consider the antitrust implications of an agreement by a manufacturer of a generic drug that, in return for a payment by the patent holder, agrees to drop its challenge to the patent and refrain from entering the market for a specified period of time.
A secondary issue concerns the certification by the District Court of a class of antitrust plaintiffs. Specifically, we must determine whether the antitrust injury allegedly suffered by class members can be shown through common proof, i.e. proof applicable to all plaintiffs, and…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- State Oil Co. v. KhanSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- King Drug Co of Florence Inc v. Smithkline Beecham CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- In re Aggrenox Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2015
- In re NexiumDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013
- In re: Lamictal Direct Purchas v.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2020
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.