Search for: "In Re: Schering Plough Corp."
Results 41 - 60
of 74
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Oct 2009, 4:30 am
” In re Schering-Plough Corp. [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
In short, we're thinking about "preemption lite. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 6:36 am
”).As to deference, Defendants cite a non-binding case, Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 10:09 pm
Although several Circuit Court decisions have used the so-called “scope of the patent test” when considering whether patent settlement agreements violate the antitrust laws, including the Eleventh Circuit in litigation involving the same K-DUR patent settlement agreement (see Schering-Plough Corp. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 4:29 am
Genzyme Corp., 2008 WL 2940811 (N.D. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 7:03 am
Schering-Plough Corp., 2006 WL 2546494, at *2 (E.D. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 2:46 pm
Schering-Plough Corp., California Supreme Court – existence of “presumption of reliance” in consumer fraud class actions· Caldwell v. [read post]
24 Oct 2008, 7:49 pm
In one of those cases, Schering-Plough Corp. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 5:00 am
" In re Schering Plough, 2012 U.S. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 11:32 am
In re Medtronic, Inc. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
., 712 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2013), and Harden Manufacturing Corp. v. [read post]
20 May 2010, 12:46 pm
” In re Schering-Plough Corp. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 6:12 pm
Geneva Pharms., Inc., 344 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2003) and Schering-Plough Corp. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 12:41 pm
The earliest was American Home Products Corp. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 9:48 am
In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation, 601 F. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 7:26 pm
Baxter Healthcare Corp., 794 F. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 3:15 am
We wouldn't base a motion solely on Actimmune, but with Pennsylvania Employees as the lead case, Actimmune is useful supporting precedent.Another candidate for best supporting actor in this area is In re Schering-Plough Corp. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 6:30 pm
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]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
In re Schering Plough Corp. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 9:19 am
Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based Merck, which is buying rival Schering-Plough Corp., had a reserve of about $42 million for the litigation, including lawyers' fees, it said. [read post]
