• In re Seroquel XR Antitrust Litig.

    Publication Date: 2022-07-19
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals | Retail | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Carmella P. Keener, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Bruce E. Gerstein, Joseph Opper, Kimberly M. Hennings, Daniel Litvin, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, New York, NY; Peter R. Kohn, Joseph T. Lukens, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Philadelphia, PA; David F. Sorensen, Caitlin G. Coslett, Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA; Stuart E. Des Roches, Amanda Hass, Chris Letter, Dan Chiorean, Thomas J. Maas, Odom & Des Roches, LLC, New Orleans, LA; Susan C. Segura, Erin R. Leger, David C. Raphael, Jr., Smith Segura Raphael & Leger, LLP, Alexandria, LA; Russell A. Chorush, Heim Payne & Cho Rush, LLP, Houston, TX; Michael J. Barry, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert G. Eisler, Deborah A. Elman, Chad B. Holtzman, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., New York, NY; Sharon K. Robertson, Donna M. Evans, Matthew W. Ruan, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY; Michael J. Barry, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jayne A. Goldstein, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Media, PA; J. Clayton Athey, Jason Wayne Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Barry L. Refsin, Alexander J. Egervary, Caitlin V. McHugh, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Philadelphia, PA; Monica L. Kiley, Eric L. Bloom, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Harrisburg, PA; J. Clayton Athey, Jason Wayne Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Scott E. Perwin, Lauren C. Ravkind, Anna T. Neil, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Miami, FL; Heidi M. Silton, Jessica N. Servais, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN; Peter Safirstein, Safirstein Metcalf LLP, New York, NY; Archana Tamoshunas, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, New York, NY; Lee Albert, Brian D. Brooks, Glancy, Prongay, & Myrray, New York, NY; Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dianne M. Nast, Joseph N. Roda, Michael D. Ford, NastLaw, Philadelphia, PA; Michael L. Roberts, Stephanie E. Smith, Roberts Law Firm US, PC, Little Rock, AR for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandrea M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John E. Schmidtlein, Benjamin M. Greenblum, Colette T. Connor, Thomas S. Fletcher, Akhil K. Gola, Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC; Arthur G. Connolly, III, Alan Richard Silverstein, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher J. Marino, James E. Gallagher, Davis Malm & D'Agostine, P.C., Boston, MA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen J. McIntyre, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Brett J. Williamson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Newport Beach, CA; Ben Bradshaw, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC; John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, Nathan Roger Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas J. Lang, Christina E. Fahmy, Peter M. Boyle, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.

    Case Number: D69888

    Antitrust claims arising from alleged reverse payment agreements were timely under the statute of limitations where each alleged supracompetitive sale constituted a discrete act that started the limitations period for that sale.

  • Appellate Division,Second Department: July 15, 2022

    Publication Date: 2022-07-19
    Practice Area: Appellate Division Activity | Civil Appeals | Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion List & Order on Application
    Judge: Unsigned
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: DOCKET

    Motion List & Order on Application released on:July 15, 2022

  • July 14, 2022 | Daily Report Online

    'A Bitter Pill': Bad News for Monsanto, as New Ruling Provides Continuity in Federal Circuits

    "This decision is significant in that it now provides continuity on the preemption issue between the federal circuits," said appellant attorney Ashleigh Ruth Madison of Southeast Law in Savannah. "This continuity, in turn, will now help others achieve the justice that they also deserve."

    6 minute read

  • July 11, 2022 | Daily Business Review

    Over-the-Counter Birth Control? Drugmaker Seeks FDA Approval

    Hormone-based pills have long been the most common form of birth control in the U.S., used by millions of women since the 1960s.

    6 minute read

  • June 27, 2022 | Law.com

    Law Firm Partner Hiring Increases Across Greater China, Singapore and Tokyo

    King & Wood Mallesons raids Fangda for an IP quartet, Atsumi & Sakai gains three in Tokyo and Hill Dickinson gains two in Singapore.

    6 minute read

  • In re Geron Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig.

    Publication Date: 2022-06-21
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Biotechnology | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: P. Bradford deLeeuw, deLeeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; Kip B. Shuman, Shuman, Glenn & Stecker, San Francisco, CA; Rusty E. Glenn, Shuman, Glenn & Stecker, Denver, CO; Brett D. Stecker, Shuman, Glenn & Stecker, Ardmore, PA; Brian J. Robbins, Craig W. Smith, Shane P. Sanders, Emily R. Bishop, Robbins LLP, San Diego, CA; Richard A. Maniskas, RM Law, P.C., Berwyn, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: D. McKinley Measley, Sarah P. Kaboly, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett De Jarnette, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Ryan E. Blair, Cooley LLP, San Diego, CA for defendants.

    Case Number: D69855

    Although plaintiff shareholders' failure of oversight claim was likely to be subsumed by their fraudulent/misleading disclosure claim, the court stayed the action pending the outcome of a related securities action in another jurisdiction that would likely resolve genuine issues of material fact in the present case.

  • June 10, 2022 | Law.com

    Skilled in the Art With Scott Graham: Five Takeaways on SEPs and the ITC at CAFC + Wilmer and Sheppard Pour Cold Water on Sexual Wellness Trade Secret Suit

    Owners of standard-essential patents and implementers could probably both draw encouragment from Federal Circuit judges' questioning in Philips v. Thales. Now we'll have to see if the court issues an opinion.

    10 minute read

  • Appellate Division, First Department

    Publication Date: 2022-06-06
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals | Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division, First Department, Appeals & Motions
    Judge: Unsigned
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: DOCKET

    Appeals &Motions List released on:June 2, 2022

  • Astellas US LLC v. Hospira, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-31
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas E. McCann, Gregory R. Booker, Robert M. Oakes, Nitika G. Fiorella, Kelly A. Del Dotto, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Michael J. Kane, Ryan V. Petty, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN; W. Chad Shear, K. Nicole Williams, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA; John M. Farrell, Fish & Richardson P.C., Redwood City, CA; Caitlin M. Dean, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY; Laura E. Powell, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC; Jason Leonard, Vincent Li, McDermott Will & Emory, New York, NY; Lisa M. Ferri, Manuel J. Velez, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nathan R. Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Charles B. Klein, Jovial Wong, Claire A. Fundakowski, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; Alison M. King, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.

    Case Number: D69833

    Patent infringement claims arising from manufacture of pharmaceutical generic product failed where abbreviated new drug application expressly excluded use of form of active ingredient that was protected by patent claims, and where plaintiffs failed to submit evidence showing that any amount of patent-protected claim would be generated by the manufacturing process.