Cases 1 - 10 of 30
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. v. AMARIN PHARMA, INC. et al
as 3:2024cv04341
Plaintiff:
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
Defendant:
AMARIN PHARMA, INC., AMARIN PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED and AMARIN CORPORATION PLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
Mayo Clinic et al v. Celgene Corporation et al
as 2:2023cv22321
Plaintiff:
Mayo Clinic and Lifepoint Corporate Services, General Partnership
Defendant:
CELGENE CORPORATION, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, NATCO PHARMA LIMITED and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH, INC. v. CELGENE CORPORATION et al
as 2:2023cv22117
Plaintiff:
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH, INC.
Defendant:
CELGENE CORPORATION, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, NATCO PHARMA LIMITED and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC. v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION et al
as 2:2012cv00995
Defendant:
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC formerly SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a/ GlaxoSmithKline and others
Interested Party:
MEIJER INC.
Amicus Curiae:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Lead Plaintiff:
KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC., LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC. and ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC.
Not Yet Classified:
MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., MORRIS & DICKSON CO., L.L.C., FWK HOLDINGS LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY, INC. v. WYETH, INC.
as 3:2011cv05479
Defendant:
WYETH LLC, WYETH, INC., WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and others
Not Yet Classified:
HEB GROCERY COMPANY LP, RITE AID CORPORATION, PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 30 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND and others
Not Classified By Court:
FAITH HOCHBERG
In Re:
EFFEXOR XR ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Special Master:
JONATHAN J. LERNER
Interested Party:
IBEW -- NECA Local 505 Health & Welfare Plan, MC -- UA Local 119 Health & Welfare Plan, CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED and others
Plaintiff:
Individual Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY, INC.
Petitioner:
TIMMY P. THIEN
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
MORRIS & DICKSON CO., L.L.C. v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC et al
as 2:2023cv02956
Defendant:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC formerly known as SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION doing business as GLAXOSMITHKLINE, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD and others
Plaintiff:
MORRIS & DICKSON CO., L.L.C.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
FWK HOLDINGS, LLC. v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC et al
as 2:2023cv02958
Defendant:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC formerly known as SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION doing business as GLAXOSMITHKLINE, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD and others
Plaintiff:
FWK Holdings LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
MLI RX LLC et al v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC et al
as 2:2023cv02960
Defendant:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC formerly known as SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION doing business as GLAXOSMITHKLINE, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD and others
Plaintiff:
MLI RX LLC, AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP., AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORP. and others
Interested Party:
GlaxoSmithKline LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, INSURANCE TRUST FUND et al v. CELGENE CORPORATION et al
as 2:2022cv06694
Plaintiff:
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, INSURANCE TRUST FUND and JACKSONVILLE POLICE OFFICERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS HEALTH INSURANCE TRUST
Defendant:
CELGENE CORPORATION, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, NATCO PHARMA LIMITED and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
WALGREEN CO. et al v. CELGENE CORPORATION et al
as 2:2022cv06440
Plaintiff:
WALGREEN CO. and KROGER SPECIALTY PHARMACY, INC.
Defendant:
CELGENE CORPORATION, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, NATCO PHARMA LIMITED and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
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.
