Com v TAP Pharm Appeal: Johnson & Johnson et al (concurring)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-52A-2014] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : v. : : : TAP PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, : INC.; ABBOTT LABORATORIES; : ASTRAZENECA PLC; ASTRAZENECA, : HOLDINGS, INC.; ASTRAZENECA : PHARMACEUTICALS LP; : ASTRAZENECA LP; BAYER AG; BAYER : CORPORATION; SMITHKLINE : BEECHAM CORPORATION D/B/A : GLAXOSMITHKLINE; PFIZER, INC.; : PHARMACIA CORPORATION; : JOHNSON & JOHNSON; ALZA : CORPORATION; CENTROCOR, INC.; : ETHICON, INC.; JANSSEN : PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, L.P.; : MCNEIL-PPC, INC.; ORTHO BIOTECH, : INC.; ORTHO BIOTECH PRODUCTS; : L.P.; ORTHO-MCNEIL : PHARMACEUTICAL, INC; AMGEN, INC.; : IMMUNEX CORPORATION; BRISTOL- : MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; BAXTER : INTERNATIONAL INC.; BAXTER : HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; : IMMUNO-U.S., INC.; AVENTIS : PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AVENTIS : BEHRING, L.L.C.; HOECHST MARION : ROUSSEL, INC., BOEHRINGER : INGELHEIM CORPORATION; : BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM : PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; BEN VENUE : LABORATORIES; BEDFORD : LABORATORIES; ROXANE : LABORATORIES; SCHERING-PLOUGH : CORPORATION; WARRICK : PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION; : SCHERING SALES CORPORATION; : No. 84 MAP 2011 Appeal from the decision of the Commonwealth Court (Opinion re PostTrial Motions of the Commonwealth and Johnson & Johnson) dated 08-31-2011 at No. 212 MD 2004. ARGUED: May 7, 2013 SUBMITTED: April 25, 2014 DEY, INC. DONNA A. BOSWELL, ESQ., ANN M. VICKERY, ESQ., AND JOSEPH A. YOUNG, ESQ., Intervenors APPEAL OF: JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ALZA CORPORATION, CENTOCOR, INC., ETHICON, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, L.P., MCNEIL-PPC, INC., ORTHO BIOTECH, INC., ORTHO BIOTECH PRODUCTS, L.P., AND ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. (COLLECTIVELY, THE "JOHNSON & JOHNSON DEFENDANTS) : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : CONCURRING STATEMENT MR. JUSTICE BAER FILED: June 16, 2014 I concur in the Court s order vacating the Commonwealth Court s order and remanding for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Prods. Inc., A.3d. (Pa. , 2014)(Baer, J. concurring)(indicating my view that a remand is warranted for further consideration of the case in light of the OAJC s analysis of the rebate issue). Madame Justice Todd and Mr. Justice McCaffery join this concurring statement. [J-52A-2013] - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.