§Why CasetextPricing

Forest Laboratories, Llc et al v. Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12

14 Cited authorities

  1. Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

    574 U.S. 318 (2015)   Cited 1,294 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, where no subsidiary factual dispute exists, appellate court reviews district court's construction of patent de novo

  2. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

    439 U.S. 322 (1979)   Cited 4,298 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

  3. Montana v. United States

    440 U.S. 147 (1979)   Cited 3,643 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"

  4. Buck v. Hampton Tp. Sch. Dist

    452 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,656 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in analyzing a motion to dismiss, the court may consider documents “attached to or submitted with the complaint, and any matters incorporated by reference or integral to the claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case.”

  5. U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.

    103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 692 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is required only "when the meaning or scope of technical terms and words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution to determine" the issue before the court

  6. Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon Lab. Corp.

    161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 375 times
    Holding that trial court can hear extrinsic evidence to educate itself about patent and relevant technology, but may not use extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict claim terms

  7. Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC

    735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 172 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that collateral estoppel prevented a patentee from asserting claims that are "substantially similar" to claims that had previously been held invalid

  8. Pharmacia Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm

    170 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 175 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding the weight of authority in agreement that a judgment is final for estoppel purposes notwithstanding the filing of post-trial motions.

  9. M M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania

    388 F. App'x 156 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 104 times
    Holding "that a prior judicial opinion constitutes a public record of which a court may take judicial notice"

  10. Anderson v. Comm'r

    698 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2012)   Cited 59 times
    In Anderson, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reasoned that because the taxable nature of income generated by one of the taxpayer's companies was necessary to establish the taxpayer's conviction under section 7201, the taxpayer's conviction did hinge on the question of whether the income was taxable.

  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 361,353 times   960 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 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7   Cited 7,938 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure