Search for: "In re: Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation" Results 1 - 4 of 4
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Third Circuit Rules “Rigorous Analysis” of Expert Testimony Required for Class Certification in Antitrust Cases
29 May 2020, 5:00 am
The case, In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, is a stark reminder for litigators that relying on the “common questions of law or fact” for class certification is not always an adequate argument in the eyes of the court. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 6:30 am
Sources Federal Trade Commission Brief as Amicus Curiae, In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 2:12-cv-00995 (D.N.J. [read post]
Cephalon and Teva’s $1.2 Billion Consent Order with the FTC: Is it Really a Harbinger of Things to Come?
19 Jun 2015, 11:04 am
., resolved long-running antitrust litigation stemming from four “reverse payment” settlements of Hatch-Waxman patent infringement cases involving the branded drug Provigil®. [read post]
Does Tyson’s “No Reasonable Juror” Standard Relieve Courts of the Obligation Rigorously To Analyze Expert Statistical Models at Class Certification?
2 Nov 2021, 8:29 am
In In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 957 F.3d 184 (3d. [read post]