In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 35 U.S.C. § 271
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Warth v. Seldin · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]very court to have considered this issue in the pay-for-delay context has held that a new cause of action accrues to purchasers upon each overpriced sale of the drug.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a new claim accrues with each alleged overcharge. Claims are therefore not time-barred that stem from alleged overcharges incurred within the relevant statutory period, whatever that period may be for a particular statute, measured backward from the filing of the claims”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“very precise and particularized estimates of fair value and anticipated litigation costs may require evidence in the exclusive possession of the defendants, as well as expert analysis, and that these issues are sufficiently factual to require discovery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.