§Why CasetextPricing

SmithKline Beecham Corporation, dba GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss PLAINTIFFS' SHERMAN ACT CLAIMS PURSUANT TO RULE 12

30 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 276,716 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  2. Erickson v. Pardus

    551 U.S. 89 (2007)   Cited 64,333 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

  3. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 115,098 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

  4. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.

    486 U.S. 800 (1988)   Cited 3,183 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

  5. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.

    504 U.S. 451 (1992)   Cited 2,321 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product

  6. Holmes Grp., v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc.

    535 U.S. 826 (2002)   Cited 1,427 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "`[l]inguistic consistency'" required that the same "arising under" test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1338, as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331

  7. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp.

    509 U.S. 209 (1993)   Cited 737 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "tacit collusion" of participants in oligopolistic market to raise prices in response to higher costs is "not in itself unlawful"

  8. Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko

    540 U.S. 398 (2004)   Cited 522 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

  9. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

    472 U.S. 585 (1985)   Cited 614 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding that predatory conduct to attain or preserve a monopoly is a prerequisite to a finding of monopolization or attempted monopolization

  10. Delaware Hudson Ry. v. Consolidated Rail

    902 F.2d 174 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 913 times
    Holding that a smaller rail carrier presented genuine issues of material fact with respect to its antitrust claims against a larger carrier where the larger carrier "placed [the smaller carrier] in a bind between giving up almost all of its profits on a given route and losing entirely the ability to carry freight on the route"

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,084 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."