§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE CIPRO CASES I & II

Appellants’ Reply to Supplemental Brief

8 Cited authorities

  1. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Actavis, Inc.

    570 U.S. 136 (2013)   Cited 305 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"

  2. 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"

  3. Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. La. Wholesale Drug Co.

    570 U.S. 913 (2013)   Cited 9 times

    No. 12–265. 2013-06-24 UPSHER–SMITH LABORATORIES, INC., petitioner, v. LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al. Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Case below, In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 686 F.3d 197. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further

  4. 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

  5. In re Ciprofloxacin

    544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 29 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Noting that an antitrust plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing an actual adverse effect on competition

  6. Rambus v. F.T.C

    522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2008)   Cited 21 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the Sherman Act, "to be condemned as exclusionary, a monopolist's act must have 'anticompetitive effect'"

  7. Fruit Machinery Co. v. F.M. Ball Co.

    118 Cal.App.2d 748 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Fruit Machinery, six canning companies formed a corporation and licensed to it rights under a fruit pitter patent owned by one of the companies.

  8. Vulcan Powder Co. v. Powder Co.

    96 Cal. 510 (Cal. 1892)   Cited 36 times
    In Vulcan Powder Co. v. Hercules Powder Co., 96 Cal. 510, 31 Pac. 581, four powder companies of California agreed that each should sell at a price to be fixed by a committee of their representatives, and should pay over to the others the profits on any excess of sales over a fixed proportion of the total sales.