§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE CIPRO CASES I & II

Appellants’ Petition for Review

99 Cited authorities

  1. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.

    486 U.S. 800 (1988)   Cited 3,118 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

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

    508 U.S. 49 (1993)   Cited 1,130 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity

  3. 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"

  4. Blank v. Kirwan

    39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 3,017 times
    Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

  5. Reid v. Google, Inc.

    50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 1,085 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”

  6. Walker, Inc. v. Food Machinery

    382 U.S. 172 (1965)   Cited 876 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there may be a violation of the Sherman Act when a patent is procured by fraud, but recognizing that a patent is an exception to the general rule against monopolies

  7. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp.

    416 U.S. 470 (1974)   Cited 494 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state trade secret law is not categorically preempted by federal patent law, noting that " most fundamental human right, that of privacy, is threatened when industrial espionage is condoned or is made profitable; the state interest in denying profit to such illegal ventures is unchallengeable" (footnote omitted)

  8. 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

  9. Precision Co. v. Automotive Co.

    324 U.S. 806 (1945)   Cited 1,061 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clean-hands doctrine "presupposes [a court of equity's] refusal ... to be the ‘abetter of iniquity’ " (quoting Bein v. Heath , 47 U.S. 228, 247, 6 How. 228, 12 L.Ed. 416 (1848) )

  10. Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc.

    498 U.S. 46 (1990)   Cited 229 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding an agreement between bar review course providers dividing market territories for the purpose of raising prices was per se illegal

  11. Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition

    28 U.S.C. § 1338   Cited 5,391 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

  12. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,892 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  13. Section 355 - New drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355   Cited 2,241 times   334 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"

  14. Section 16700 - Cumulative provisions

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16700   Cited 364 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Banning agreements to restrain trade

  15. Section 355a - Pediatric studies of drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355a   Cited 68 times   12 Legal Analyses

    (a) Definitions As used in this section, the term "pediatric studies" or "studies" means at least one clinical investigation (that, at the Secretary's discretion, may include pharmacokinetic studies) in pediatric age groups (including neonates in appropriate cases) in which a drug is anticipated to be used, and, at the discretion of the Secretary, may include preclinical studies. (b) Market exclusivity for new drugs (1) In general Except as provided in paragraph (2), if, prior to approval of an application

  16. Section 355g - Utilizing real world evidence

    21 U.S.C. § 355g   Cited 14 times   12 Legal Analyses

    (a) In general The Secretary shall establish a program to evaluate the potential use of real world evidence- (1) to help to support the approval of a new indication for a drug approved under section 355(c) of this title; and (2) to help to support or satisfy postapproval study requirements. (b) Real world evidence defined In this section, the term "real world evidence" means data regarding the usage, or the potential benefits or risks, of a drug derived from sources other than traditional clinical