SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION v. APOTEX CORPORATION

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Civil Action Nos. 99-CV-4304, 00-CV-4888, 01-CV-0159, 01-CV-2169, 99-CV-2926, 00-CV-5953, 02-CV-1484, 00-CV-1393, 00-CV-6464, 01-CV-2602, 01-CV-1027, 01-CV-3364, 02-CV-8493, 01-CV-2981, 03-CV-6117, 03-CV-3365.

Judges

Richard Barclay Surrick

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM, P.L.C., BEECHAM GROUP, P.L.C. and GLAXOSMITHKLINE, P.L.C. v. APOTEX CORPORATION, APOTEX, INC. and TORPHARM, INC.

ORDER

RICHARD B. SURRICK, District Judge

AND NOW, this 29^th day of September, 2004, upon consideration of the Motions to Dismiss filed by SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham, P.L.C., Beecham Group, P.L.C. and GlaxoSmithKline, P.L.C., (Doc. Nos. 112, 124), the Motion to Dismiss filed by Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Pentech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("PAR/Pentech"), (Doc. No. 117), and Torpharm's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Response, (Doc. No. 140), it is ORDERED that the Motion for Leave is GRANTED, and the Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. Torpharm's Sixth Cause of Action, its antitrust conspiracy claim, is DISMISSED in its entirety;

2. Torpharm's Seventh Cause of Action, its attempted monopolization claim, is DISMISSED as to PAR/Pentech; and

3. Torpharm's Eighth Cause of Action, its tortious interference claim, is DISMISSED against PAR/Pentech in its entirety, and DISMISSED against SmithKline to the extent those claims are based on Torpharm's purported right to a 180-day period of market exclusivity;

4. PAR/Pentech is dismissed as a counterclaim defendant; and

5. In all other respects, the Motions to Dismiss are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM, P.L.C., BEECHAM GROUP, P.L.C. and GLAXOSMITHKLINE, P.L.C. v. APOTEX CORPORATION, APOTEX, INC. and TORPHARM, INC.

Comments