§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE CIPRO CASES I & II

Respondents, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc., Answer Brief on the Merits

77 Cited authorities

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,862 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”

  2. Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko

    540 U.S. 398 (2004)   Cited 512 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

  3. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,433 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

  4. Reid v. Google, Inc.

    50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 1,091 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”

  5. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.

    489 U.S. 141 (1989)   Cited 566 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state law prohibiting people from copying unpatentable boat hull designs was preempted because it sought to provide patent-like protection to boat designs not protectable by patent laws and it "contravenes the ultimate goal of public disclosure and use that is the centerpiece of federal patent policy"

  6. Rusheen v. Cohen

    37 Cal.4th 1048 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,157 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding California's litigation privilege precludes liability arising from noncommunicative acts that are necessarily related to enforcing a judgment

  7. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States

    356 U.S. 1 (1958)   Cited 1,397 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding market power based on the uniqueness of the owned land

  8. Walker, Inc. v. Food Machinery

    382 U.S. 172 (1965)   Cited 878 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

  9. Hines v. Davidowitz

    312 U.S. 52 (1941)   Cited 2,186 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements

  10. Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Stiffel Co.

    376 U.S. 225 (1964)   Cited 558 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state unfair competition law cannot be applied to "give protection of a kind that clashes with the objectives of the federal patent laws"

  11. Section 1295 - Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    28 U.S.C. § 1295   Cited 8,334 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Granting jurisdiction to the Federal Circuit over cases arising from executive agency board of contract appeals

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,061 times   1055 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  13. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,903 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  14. Section 355 - New drugs

    21 U.S.C. § 355   Cited 2,252 times   340 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"

  15. Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 762 times   258 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents

  16. Section 1 to 5 - Repealed

    21 U.S.C. § 1 - 21 U.S.C. § 5   Cited 101 times

    21 U.S.C. § 1 to 5 June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §1002(a), formerly §902(a), 52 Stat. 1059; renumbered §1002(a), Pub. L. 111-31, div. A, title I, §101(b)(2), June 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1784 Section 1, act June 30, 1906ch. 3915, §1June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. 768, made it unlawful to manufacture adulterated or misbranded foods or drugs in Territories or District of Columbia and provided penalty for violations. See sections 331 and 333 of this title. Section 2, act June 30, 1906ch. 3915, §2June 30, 1906, 34 Stat

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. Rule 8.516 - Issues on review

    Cal. R. 8.516   Cited 120 times

    (a)Issues to be briefed and argued (1) On or after ordering review, the Supreme Court may specify the issues to be briefed and argued. Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties must limit their briefs and arguments to those issues and any issues fairly included in them. (2) Notwithstanding an order specifying issues under (1), the court may, on reasonable notice, order oral argument on fewer or additional issues or on the entire cause. (b)Issues to be decided (1) The Supreme Court may decide

  20. 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)

  21. Rule 8.29 - Service on nonparty public officer or agency

    Cal. R. 8.29   Cited 6 times

    (a)Proof of service When a statute or this rule requires a party to serve any document on a nonparty public officer or agency, the party must file proof of such service with the document unless a statute permits service after the document is filed, in which case the proof of service must be filed immediately after the document is served on the public officer or agency. (Subd (a) relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (b).) (b)Identification on cover When a statute or this rule requires