In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. · Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp. · National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma · Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“determined by the nature of the challenged [reverse payment settlement] agreement, that the only relevant market ... [was] therefore the market of Aggrenox and its generic equivalents, and that no discovery or evidence relating to other drugs as potential substitutes [was] relevant.” Aggrenox II, 199 F.Supp.3d at 663 ; see also id. at 665-66 (noting that the relevant market would”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[c]ourts often define market power as the ability (1) to control prices or (2) to exclude competition.’ ” IIB Areeda & Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law, ¶ 501, at 111 (3d ed. 2007) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.