Search for: "In Re: Schering Plough Corp." Results 21 - 40 of 74
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jul 2012, 1:17 pm by Bexis
  Moreover, given the Third Circuit’s intervening standing decision in In re Schering Plough Corp. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 10:56 am by Bexis
Oct. 7, 2009) (“[m]erely alleging that [defendant] marketed the drugs at issue for off-label purposes does not state a claim for fraud”); In re Schering-Plough Corp. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 11:29 am by Bexis
Schering-Plough Corp., 842 A.2d 174, 177-78 (N.J. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 9:33 am by Michelle Yeary
  This too is not new ground, see In re Schering-Plough Corp., Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, 2009 WL 2043604 (D.N.J. [read post]
19 May 2011, 12:20 pm by Phil
This case is an antitrust challenge to an agreement settling patent litigation between defendant-appellee Schering-Plough Corp.2 ("Schering") and defendant-appellee Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 10:42 am by FDABlog HPM
Cir. 2001), and applied by the FTC in an administrative proceeding – In re Schering-Plough Corp., F.T.C. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 6:30 pm by Gene Quinn
The Sixth Circuit considers such agreements per se illegal, see In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003), the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice both consider them presumptively anticompetitive, see In re Schering Plough Corp., No. 9297 (F.T.C. [read post]