32 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,170 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"
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
526 U.S. 137 (1999) Cited 12,601 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
Whitmore v. Arkansas
495 U.S. 149 (1990) Cited 2,849 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that a third party does not have "standing to challenge the validity of a death sentence imposed on a capital defendant who has elected to forgo his right of appeal"
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n
434 U.S. 412 (1978) Cited 3,642 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under § 706(k) of Title VII, a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” or where plaintiff acted in bad faith
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Actavis, Inc.
570 U.S. 136 (2013) Cited 303 times 91 Legal Analyses
Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"
Mesnick v. General Elec. Co.
950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) Cited 1,975 times
Holding that plaintiff had not provided "direct or circumstantial" evidence to overcome summary judgment
In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation
906 A.2d 27 (Del. 2006) Cited 536 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding bad faith to be a “category of fiduciary conduct, which falls in between the first two categories of conduct motivated by subjective bad intent and conduct resulting from gross negligence” and that bad faith could be found “where the fiduciary acts with a purpose other than that of advancing the best interests of the corporation.”
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 412 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence relying on "25 percent rule of thumb," which was a tool used to approximate the reasonable royalty rate the manufacturer of patented product would be willing to offer to pay to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation, was inadmissible under Daubert since it failed to tie a reasonably royalty base to facts of case at issue
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.
318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) Cited 743 times 29 Legal Analyses
Finding that “royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in suit” is a relevant factor for the jury to consider
Rathbun v. Autozone, Inc.
361 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2004) Cited 183 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a “legislature's decision to offer claimants separate administrative and judicial paths through which to rectify the same wrongs” will inevitably lead to different treatment of factually identical claims
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,631 times 254 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard

In Re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation

32 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

Holding that a third party does not have "standing to challenge the validity of a death sentence imposed on a capital defendant who has elected to forgo his right of appeal"

Holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under § 706(k) of Title VII, a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” or where plaintiff acted in bad faith

Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"

Holding that plaintiff had not provided "direct or circumstantial" evidence to overcome summary judgment

Finding that “royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in suit” is a relevant factor for the jury to consider

Holding that a “legislature's decision to offer claimants separate administrative and judicial paths through which to rectify the same wrongs” will inevitably lead to different treatment of factually identical claims

Adopting the Daubert standard