Legal Opinion
Chemi SpA v. GlaxoSmithKline
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 8, 2005No. Civ.A.04-4545PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
BARTLE, District Judge.
This is an antitrust action for unlawful monopolization pursuant to § 2 of the Sherman Act and § 4 of the Clayton Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 2,15. Before the court is the motion of defendant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that this action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that plaintiff does not have standing to bring this lawsuit.
I
In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the well-pleaded facts of the complaint will be taken as true. In…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., C/o Ct Corporation Systems Registered AgentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Sherry J. Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & BermanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- Atiyeh v. National Fire Ins. Co. of HartfordDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- Sigmapharm, Inc. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- SigmaPharm, Inc. v. MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL CO.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- Hoover v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.