In this action involving allegations of antitrust violations stemming from defendant's conduct delaying entry of generic fluticasone propionate nasal sprays into the market, defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that its conduct was protected from antitrust liability under the First Amendment and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Motion for summary judgment denied.
June 14, 2011 at 10:00 AM
1 minute read
In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation, PICS Case No. 11-1040 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2011) Brody, J. (31 pages).
In this action involving allegations of antitrust violations stemming from defendant’s conduct delaying entry of generic fluticasone propionate nasal sprays into the market, defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that its conduct was protected from antitrust liability under the First Amendment and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Motion for summary judgment denied.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Celebrating achievement, excellence, and innovation in the legal profession in the UK.
Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers and financiers for the real estate healthcare event of the year!
This event shines a spotlight on how individuals and firms are changing the investment advisory industry where it matters most.
Downtown property and casualty defense law firm seeks litigation associate with 2+ years' experience in insurance defense litigation. The fi...
Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in the New York office for a Counsel in our renowned Labor & Employment Department, working w...
Our client, a large, privately-owned healthcare company, has engaged us to find an Assistant General Counsel for their headquarters located ...
