Search for: "In re Cipro Cases"
Results 1 - 20
of 78
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2015, 4:00 am
On March 3, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco, the Court will hear argument in In re Cipro Cases I & II, No. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 4:00 am
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015, I attended the oral argument in In re Cipro Cases I & II, No. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 4:00 am
This morning at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco, the Court will hear oral argument in In re Cipro Cases I & II, No. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 5:00 am
In In re Cipro Cases I & II, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Nov. 1, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) followed Chavez v. [read post]
8 May 2015, 4:00 am
Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its eagerly-anticipated opinion, In re Cipro Cases I & II, __ Cal.4th ___ (May 7, 2015), in which the Court was expected to reaffirm its landmark holding in Cel-Tech that conduct can be "unfair" under the UCL even if not "unlawful," and vice versa. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 9:55 pm
In re Ciprofloxacin Antitrust Litigation By Kevin E. [read post]
20 May 2010, 7:30 am
The case, In re: Cipro Cases I & II, is a proceeding of nine coordinated cases brought by indirect CIPRO purchasers almost ten years ago. [read post]
12 May 2015, 10:24 am
On May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. [read post]
11 May 2015, 10:00 pm
In In Re Cipro Cases I & II, the California Supreme Court laid out a four-part rule of reason analysis for evaluating ANDA settlements that involve a reverse payment to the generic challenger (also referred to as “pay for delay” settlements). [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 11:47 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied rehearing en banc today of its recent decision in the reverse-payment case of Arkansas Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund v. [read post]
6 Feb 2008, 3:47 pm
In the case, direct purchaser plaintiffs of Cipro (ciprofloxacin) alleged that settlements of patent litigation between Bayer and several generic drug companies violated federal and state antitrust laws. [read post]
4 May 2010, 11:40 am
Barr Labs., Inc., (In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig.), 466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005), compelled it to do so: “Since Tamoxifen rejected antitrust challenges to reverse payments as a matter of law, we are bound to review the Cipro court’s rulings under the standard adopted in Tamoxifen. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 3:21 pm
(In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig.), 2006-2 Trade Cases ¶75,382. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 9:29 pm
Bayer AG (decided below as In re Ciprofloxacin Antitrust Litigation; see also "Second Circuit Denies En Banc Reconsideration in Cipro® Case"). [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 6:12 pm
The case, styled as In re Cipro Cases I & II, was initiated in late 2000 and is a proceeding of nine coordinated cases brought by indirect CIPRO purchasers. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 2:29 pm
(In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig.), 2006-2 Trade Cases ¶75,382—invited the plaintiffs to petition for rehearing en banc so that the full appeals court might consider the issue. [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 9:22 pm
Microsoft case and address the presumption of validity, as well as what implications such a ruling would have on the value of previously acquired property rights. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 10:42 am
This is the standard applied by the Second Circuit in Tamoxifen and Cipro, and by the Federal Circuit in In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 6:36 am
Bayer AG (In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig.), 05-2851-cv(L) (2d Cir. 2010) (“Cipro”). [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 9:18 pm
• The Outcome of CIPRO and its Effect on Reverse Payments; • Patentable Subject Matter after In re Bilski; and • Identifying and Conveying the Evidence of Fraud in Patent Cases. [read post]
