Search for: "In Re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation" Results 1 - 9 of 9
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Apr 2007, 11:58 pm
BNA's United States Law Week reported in Vol. 75, No. 33 (Mar. 6, 2007) on the case In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 528044 (6th Cir. [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 11:23 pm
Compare In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 812, 817 (6th Cir.2004) (determining whether attorneys' fees are included in "costs" by reference to the state statute that formed the basis of the suit), Pedraza v. [read post]
6 Nov 2007, 4:26 am
Compare In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 812, 817 (6th Cir.2004) (determining whether attorneys' fees are included in "costs" by reference to the state statute that formed the basis of the suit), Pedraza v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 12:10 pm
According to the amici, the Second Circuit has adopted a rule of near per se legality, In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., 466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2006); the Sixth Circuit has adopted a rule of per se illegality, In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003); and the Eleventh Circuit has adopted a modified version of the rule of reason analysis that inquires into the underlying validity of the patent… [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 10:42 am by FDABlog HPM
This standard was applied by the Sixth Circuit in In re Cardizem CD Antitrusty Litig., 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003), relied on by the D.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]