§Why CasetextPricing

Federal Trade Commission v. Abbvie Inc et al

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

44 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 254,855 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,629 times   366 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' "

  3. In re Burlington Coat Factory

    114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 7,702 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may consider a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" when deciding a motion to dismiss

  4. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.

    998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993)   Cited 6,203 times
    Holding that, when reviewing a motion to dismiss, courts consider "allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record"

  5. Frederico v. Home Depot

    507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 2,226 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a dismissal order "without prejudice" was a final order because the plaintiff elected to stand on her original complaint rather than amend or refile it

  6. Great Western Mining v. Fox Rothschild

    615 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,818 times
    Holding that a § 1983 conspiracy claimant must assert facts from which a conspiratorial agreement can be inferred, not conclusory allegations

  7. Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko

    540 U.S. 398 (2004)   Cited 512 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

  8. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation

    618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,467 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that per se "hub and spoke" theory was not properly pled when complaint detailed specific agreements between multiple insurers and a single broker, but did not allege facts such that the court could infer that the insurers had agreed horizontally to enter into their respective agreements with the broker

  9. Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns, Inc.

    555 U.S. 438 (2009)   Cited 406 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding "price-squeezing" claims not cognizable under the Sherman Act

  10. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Actavis, Inc.

    570 U.S. 136 (2013)   Cited 309 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,180 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,061 times   1055 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  13. Section 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

    15 U.S.C. § 45   Cited 3,864 times   565 Legal Analyses
    Providing court-ordered monetary penalties against anyone who engages in conduct previously identified as prohibited in a final cease and desist order, but only if the violator acted with "actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive"

  14. Section 355 - New drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355   Cited 2,252 times   340 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"

  15. Section 331 - Prohibited acts

    21 U.S.C. § 331   Cited 1,517 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the sale of adulterated foods

  16. Section 314.53 - Submission of patent information

    21 C.F.R. § 314.53   Cited 91 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Referring to "those patents that claim the drug product," and those "patents that claim the drug substance"