§Why CasetextPricing

Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon, Inc.

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint

79 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 274,396 times   368 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

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

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,917 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  3. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,405 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  4. Medimmune, Inc. v. GenenTech, Inc.

    549 U.S. 118 (2007)   Cited 2,607 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"

  5. Phillips v. County of Allegheny

    515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 17,239 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

  6. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside

    578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 14,362 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion "in denying a motion for a class action determination which was untimely under the local rule"

  7. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,540 times   183 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  8. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.

    486 U.S. 800 (1988)   Cited 3,175 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

  9. United States v. Gypsum Co.

    333 U.S. 364 (1948)   Cited 10,590 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that oral testimony in conflict with contemporaneous documentary evidence deserves little weight

  10. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

    508 U.S. 49 (1993)   Cited 1,149 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 355,194 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 333,823 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  13. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,145 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  14. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,806 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"

  15. Section 1295 - Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    28 U.S.C. § 1295   Cited 8,458 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Granting jurisdiction to the Federal Circuit over cases arising from executive agency board of contract appeals

  16. Section 355 - New drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355   Cited 2,262 times   351 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 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 772 times   264 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents

  18. Section 314.107 - Date of approval of a 505(b)(2) application or ANDA

    21 C.F.R. § 314.107   Cited 67 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Expanding Paragraph IV certification to include "unenforceability" defense in addition to the invalidity and noninfringement defenses stated in 21 U.S.C. § 355(j), because unenforceability is a recognized reason why a generic drug product would not violate a patent holder's rights