§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE CIPRO CASES I & II

Respondent, Bayer Corporation, Answer to Petition for Review

44 Cited authorities

  1. 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”

  2. 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

  3. Ben v. Ben

    40 Cal.4th 529 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 680 times
    Holding Wende review unnecessary in appeal from conservatorship order

  4. In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation

    466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 219 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding "where amendment would be futile, denial of leave to amend is proper"

  5. 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

  6. United States v. Sealy, Inc.

    388 U.S. 350 (1967)   Cited 140 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Sealy was not a single entity, but instead an “instrumentality of the individual” parties

  7. U.S. v. Masonite Corp.

    316 U.S. 265 (1942)   Cited 247 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a price-fixing agreement among patentees and their licensees per se illegal

  8. Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    289 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2003)   Cited 120 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding supplier of active ingredient for drug lacked antitrust standing to allege anticompetitive agreement to apportion market for the drug

  9. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

    332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003)   Cited 114 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding such agreements to be per se illegal

  10. U.S. v. Univis Lens Co.

    316 U.S. 241 (1942)   Cited 191 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the purchaser's licensees were permitted to practice the patent through the doctrine of patent exhaustion

  11. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,027 times   1044 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

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

    28 U.S.C. § 1338   Cited 5,389 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"

  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 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 760 times   257 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents

  15. Section 3, Nov - 5, 1971, 85 Stat. 419

    21 U.S.C. § 3, Nov   Cited 29 times
    In Section 3, the Fair Sentencing Act eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence for “simple possession” of cocaine base.

  16. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  17. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)