§Why CasetextPricing

Allergan, Inc. et al v. Apotex Inc., et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re

26 Cited authorities

  1. Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,799 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  2. Goldberg v. Kelly

    397 U.S. 254 (1970)   Cited 4,953 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process rights attach to the deprivation of Government benefits

  3. Bayer AG v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp.

    212 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 359 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts can consider statements made in the ANDA to instruct their infringement analysis

  4. Dixon v. Edwards

    290 F.3d 699 (4th Cir. 2002)   Cited 214 times
    Holding that “the civil courts of our country are obliged to play a limited role in resolving church disputes” and that that role does not include “deciding issues of religious doctrine and practice, or ... interfering with internal church government”

  5. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Management Dynamics, Inc.

    515 F.2d 801 (2d Cir. 1975)   Cited 438 times
    Holding that as "vice-president in charge of trading," aider and abettor "occupied a prominent position within the company[]" such that the "apparent authority exercised by [him]" created liability under agency principles

  6. Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co.

    791 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1986)   Cited 291 times
    Holding that, under federal maritime law, "a court should not look beyond the written language of the contract to determine the intent of the parties unless the disputed language is ambiguous"

  7. Abbott Lab. v. Torpharm

    503 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 25 times
    Allowing the use of expert testimony on the colorable differences question

  8. Knox v. Salinas

    193 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 22 times

    No. 98-9469. Argued: July 12, 1999. Decided: September 21, 1999. Appeal from a permanent injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Peter C. Dorsey, Judge), prescribing detailed procedures for notifying owners when their motor vehicles are towed and when a towing company intends to sell an unclaimed vehicle to recover towing and storage costs. The District Court concluded that recently promulgated regulations of Connecticut's Commissioner of Motor Vehicles

  9. United States v. McGee

    714 F.2d 607 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 37 times

    No. 82-3068. Argued April 12, 1983. Decided July 26, 1983. Robert E. Albright, Richard C. Brahm (argued), Lucas, Prendergast, Albright, Gibson, Newman Gee, Columbus, Ohio, for defendants-appellants. Arthur E. Gowran (argued), Robert D. Clark, Dirk D. Snel, Land Natural Resources Div., Appellate Section, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Before LIVELY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge

  10. Town of Huntington v. Marsh

    884 F.2d 648 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 28 times
    Applying Weinberger and Amoco and concluding that they require a showing of irreparable injury apart from the violation of NEPA procedural requirements

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,985 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,205 times   654 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  13. Rule 52 - Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 52   Cited 26,419 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that a "reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility"

  14. Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 65   Cited 22,449 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

  15. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,048 times   1052 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  16. Section 355 - New drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355   Cited 2,246 times   338 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"

  17. Section 331 - Prohibited acts

    21 U.S.C. § 331   Cited 1,513 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the sale of adulterated foods

  18. Section 333 - Penalties

    21 U.S.C. § 333   Cited 436 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Defining civil and criminal penalties for violations of Section 331

  19. Section 334 - Seizure

    21 U.S.C. § 334   Cited 374 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing a libel for condemnation of adulterated and misbranded pharmaceuticals

  20. Section 332 - Injunction proceedings

    21 U.S.C. § 332   Cited 268 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Granting the district court jurisdiction to restrain violations of FDCA