Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
264 results for '* industry:"Federal Government"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Tax
Industry: Federal Government | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Clint Carpenter, Arthur T. Catterall, United States Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC; Emily J. Giometti, Cincinnati, OH; Lisa M. Rodriguez, Office of District Council, Internal Revenue Service, Newark, NJ; Mary H. Weber, Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel, Cincinnati, OH for appellant.
for defendant: Gregory G. Garre, Eric Konopka, Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC; Bryan M. Killian, William F. Nelson, James G. Steele, III, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC for appellee.
Case Number: 22-1193
Legal expenses incurred by generic drug manufacturers to defend against patent infringement lawsuits were tax-deductible where they were ordinary and necessary business expenses as patent litigation was separate from the FDA approval process for ANDAs.
Publication Date: 2023-08-07
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Federal Government | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Chagares
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1562
District court properly dismissed the portion of the indictment asserting defendants conspired to violate 21 U.S.C. §§331(d) and 355(a) in action over sourcing of an active ingredient for a drug from a facility not included in the Abbreviated New Drug Applications approvals and court found the drug at issue had the same composition and labeling as the drug for which an ANDA approval was effective and government could not rely on the premise that the two drugs were different and noted government's other argument had been rejected in We
Publication Date: 2023-08-07
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jonathan S. Kanter, Doha Mekki, Maggie Goodlander, David B. Lawrence, Daniel E. Haar, Nikolai G. Levin, Peter M. Bozzo, Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff-appellant.
for defendant: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Amanda P. Reeves, Lindsey S. Champlin, David L. Johnson, Charles S. Dameron, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Christopher S. Yates, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy G. Cameron, Peter T. Barbur, David R. Marriott, Daniel K. Zach, Michael K. Zaken, Lindsey J. Timlin, Hannah L. Dwyer, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Amanda L. Wait, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Daniel K. Hogan, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE for defendant-appellees.
Case Number: 22-2806
Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.
Publication Date: 2023-07-31
Practice Area: Education Law
Industry: Education | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Colville
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:22-cv-736
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's motion for declaratory relief and a court order declaring her correct birth date on her U.S. passport so she could comply with regulations pertaining to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and court dismissed her complaint without prejudice because court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2023-07-31
Practice Area: Administrative Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
Judge: District Judge Carlson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1:22-CV-1902
ALJ erred in denying plaintiff's application for disability benefits because ALJ stated the record did not contain evidence of nerve root compression but that finding was contradicted by ALJ's discussion of the medical record which included a 2017 MRI that showed evidence of nerve root compression. Remanded.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Shari L. Klevens, Alanna G. Clair
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-07-24
Practice Area: Public Records
Industry: Federal Government | Legal Services
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Brody
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-6427
U.S. Customs and Border Protection failed to conduct adequate search where it merely made bare assertions that responsive records were not located on mobile devices and failed to use all responsive search terms when searching email inboxes. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted in part, defendant's cross-motion denied.
Publication Date: 2023-07-10
Practice Area: Civil Rights
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Krause
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Rudovsky, Jonathan H. Feinberg, Susan M. Lin Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Patrick Toomey, Ashley Gorski, Sarah Taitz, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY; Jonathan Hafetz, Seton Hall Law School, Newark, NJ for appellants.
for defendant: Leif Overvold, Brian M. Boynton, H. Thomas Byron III, Sharon Swingle, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for appellees.
Case Number: 21-2798
"Clearly established" threshold inapplicable to discretionary function exception analysis under FTCA because the government lacked discretion to violate constitutional rights.
Publication Date: 2023-07-03
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
Judge: District Judge Kane
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1:20-cv-00663
Court awarded attorneys' fees to defendant where plaintiff did not meaningfully contest the reasonableness of defendant's counsel's hours worked or hourly billing rate. Defendant's motion for attorneys' fees granted.
Publication Date: 2023-06-26
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge McHugh
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-3808
Hostile work environment and disparate treatment claims failed due to the lack of severe or pervasive conduct or an adverse employment action, but negative performance reviews following EEOC charge that supervisor repeatedly referenced supported a plausible retaliation claim. Defendant's motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2023-06-19
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Krause
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-2798
District court properly dismissed appellant's Bivens claims and his fifth amendment Federal Tort Claims Act claim but erred in dismissing appellant's fourth amendment FTCA claim, in action over his arrest for allegedly providing Chinese authorities with sensitive information about super conductor technology, because appellant's fourth and fifth amendment claims arose in a new context and implicated special factors involving national security but fourth amendment FTCA complaint listed discrete instances of agent's knowing provision of
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read