APOTEX INC.v. ALCON RESEARCH, LTD, et al.
| APOTEX INC. |
| ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., ALCON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. and ALCON RESEARCH, LTD |
| BARR LABORATORIES, INC. |
| 1:2016cv03145 |
| November 17, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| William T. Lawrence |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
59
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 47 Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment Under Federal Rule of Procedure 59(a) and Motion to Amend The Complaint Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/15/2017. (JDC)
|
|
Filing
45
ENTRY ON MOTION TO DISMISS - This cause is before the Court on the motion of Intervenor-Defendant Barr Laboratories, Inc., ("Barr") seeking to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 38 ). The motion is fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below. The Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear this case because it does not present a case or controversy as required by Article III. Accordingly, Barr's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 2/27/2017. (BRR)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
