Cases 11 - 16 of 16
Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company Inc. v. Merck & Co Inc. et al
as 1:2010cv00183
Plaintiff:
Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company Inc.
Defendant:
Merck & Co Inc., Cancer Research Technology Limited and Sanofi-Aventis
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
A.F. OF L. - A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES PLAN v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
as 3:2009cv04202
Plaintiff:
A.F. OF L. - A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES PLAN, A.F. OF L. - A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES PLAN, A.F. OF L. - A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES PLAN and others
Defendant:
MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME PHARMACEUTICALS SRL
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
as 3:2009cv04203
Plaintiff:
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. and ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC.
Defendant:
MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME PHARMACEUTICALS SRL
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN et al v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME PHARMACEUTICALS SRL et al
as 3:2009cv04116
Plaintiff:
DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN, DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN, THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and others
Defendant:
MERCK SHARP & DOHME PHARMACEUTICALS SRL and Merck & Co. Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC. et al v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
as 3:2009cv04050
Plaintiff:
LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC., BURLINGTON DRUG CO., INC. and MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.
Defendant:
MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME PHARMACEUTICALS SRL
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
BRADY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al v. MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC. et al
as 2:2003cv04730
Plaintiff:
BRADY ENTERPRISES, INC. , CHARLOTTE J. LOPACKI , HERITAGE PHARMACY, INC. and others
Defendant:
MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC. and MERCK & CO., INC.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
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.
