APOTEX, INC. v. CEPHALON, INC. et al, No. 2:2006cv02768 - Document 982 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT THE GENERIC DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (DOC. NO. 956 ), IS GRANTED, SUCH THAT PLAINTIFFS' MAY NOT ARGUE A PER SE THEORY OF LIABILITY BASED ON THE GENERIC DEFENDANTS' "KNOWLEDGE OF FRAUD" AT TRIAL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 12/14/2015. 12/14/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(amas)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______________________________________________________________________________ : KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC., : CIVIL ACTION et al., : Plaintiffs, : : v. : No. 2:06-cv-1797 : CEPHALON, INC., et al., : Defendants. : _________________________________________ :__________________________________ : VISTA HEALTHPLAN, INC., et al., : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, : : v. : No. 2:06-cv-1833 : CEPHALON, INC., et al., : Defendants. : _________________________________________ :__________________________________ : APOTEX, INC., : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 2:06-cv-2768 : CEPHALON, INC., et al., : Defendants. : _________________________________________ :___________________________________ ORDER AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2015, upon consideration of the “Generic Defendants’ Motion to Strike ‘Fraudulent Patent’ Theory from Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum” (Dkt. No. 06-1797, Doc. No. 901; Dkt. No. 06-1833, Doc. No. 498; Dkt. No. 06-2768, Doc. No. 956), which I have construed as a motion to establish the legal standard that will govern Plaintiffs’ claims against the Generic Defendants at trial, and the responses thereto, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the 1 Generic Defendants’ motion is GRANTED, such that Plaintiffs’ may not argue a per se theory of liability based on the Generic Defendants’ “knowledge of fraud” at trial. BY THE COURT: /s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg ______________________________ Mitchell S. Goldberg, J. 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.