§Why CasetextPricing

In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 434 MOTION for Summary Judgment / Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment. [Re

59 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,625 times   365 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,309 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 113,121 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

  4. Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters

    459 U.S. 519 (1983)   Cited 5,032 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union lacked standing to sue for injuries passed on to it by intermediaries

  5. Arizona v. California

    460 U.S. 605 (1983)   Cited 2,209 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that res judicata barred re-opening the quantification of tribes' Winters rights

  6. Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.

    429 U.S. 477 (1977)   Cited 2,063 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws

  7. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.

    465 U.S. 752 (1984)   Cited 1,184 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff in a vertical price-fixing case must produce evidence which "tends to exclude the possibility of independent action"

  8. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp.

    509 U.S. 209 (1993)   Cited 729 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "tacit collusion" of participants in oligopolistic market to raise prices in response to higher costs is "not in itself unlawful"

  9. Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko

    540 U.S. 398 (2004)   Cited 506 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

  10. Unitherm Food v. Swifteckrich

    546 U.S. 394 (2006)   Cited 468 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "since respondent failed to renew its preverdict motion as specified in Rule 50(b), there was no basis for review of respondent's sufficiency of the evidence challenge in the Court of Appeals"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,736 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,040 times   1050 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  13. Section 15 - Suits by persons injured

    15 U.S.C. § 15   Cited 5,671 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."

  14. Section 156 - Extension of patent term

    35 U.S.C. § 156   Cited 202 times   173 Legal Analyses
    Granting five-year extension of patent term based upon regulatory review of the product Abilify® (aripiprazole) by the FDA