§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE CIPRO CASES I & II

Appellants’ Letter Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. Gunn v. Minton

    568 U.S. 251 (2013)   Cited 2,655 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding insubstantial the federal question whether patent lawyers being sued for malpractice could have succeeded in a prior federal patent suit by timely raising a particular argument, because "[n]o matter how the state courts resolve that hypothetical ‘case within a case,’ it w[ould] not change the real-world result of the prior federal patent litigation. [Plaintiff's] patent w[ould] remain invalid."

  2. Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation

    402 U.S. 313 (1971)   Cited 2,221 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"

  3. 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"

  4. California v. Arc America Corp.

    490 U.S. 93 (1989)   Cited 498 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sherman Act, which does not allow indirect purchaser actions, does not preempt state laws that allow indirect purchasers to obtain relief

  5. Lear, Inc. v. Adkins

    395 U.S. 653 (1969)   Cited 495 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the licensee is "permitted to avoid the payment of all royalties" if it can prove patent invalidity

  6. In re Hunter S.

    142 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 281 times
    Holding visitation determinations cannot be delegated to a therapist

  7. In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation

    466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 220 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding "where amendment would be futile, denial of leave to amend is proper"

  8. United States v. Singer Mfg. Co.

    374 U.S. 174 (1963)   Cited 162 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that settlement agreements between the Singer Company and its Italian and Swiss competitors violated the Sherman Act

  9. Roth v. Rhodes

    25 Cal.App.4th 530 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 169 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a speculative relationship does not satisfy the existing relationship prong

  10. In re Swanson

    540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 58 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding the scope of an examiner's prior consideration of a reference is a question of fact