§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE CIPRO CASES I & II

Respondents, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc., Reply to Supplemental Brief

36 Cited authorities

  1. Gunn v. Minton

    568 U.S. 251 (2013)   Cited 2,654 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. Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg.

    545 U.S. 308 (2005)   Cited 3,208 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction."

  3. Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Limited Partnership

    564 U.S. 91 (2011)   Cited 1,146 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 282 ’s presumption of validity in litigation imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard on defendants seeking to prove invalidity

  4. United States v. Gypsum Co.

    333 U.S. 364 (1948)   Cited 10,419 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that oral testimony in conflict with contemporaneous documentary evidence deserves little weight

  5. 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

  6. Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko

    540 U.S. 398 (2004)   Cited 506 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

  7. 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"

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

    489 U.S. 141 (1989)   Cited 563 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"

  9. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400

    25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,193 times
    Affirming summary judgment when plaintiffs evidence only raised a speculative possibility that defendant's breaches caused the plaintiff's injuries

  10. California Dental Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission

    526 U.S. 756 (1999)   Cited 204 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that full rule of reason analysis was required where challenged restraint "might plausibly be thought to have a net procompetitive effect, or possibly no effect at all on competition"

  11. 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