APOTEX, INC. v. CEPHALON, INC. et al

Filing 675

ORDER THAT DIRECT PURCHASERS' MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART, AS OUTLINED IN THE OPINION. THE END PAYORS' MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART, AS OUTLINED IN THE OPINION. APOTEX'S MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART, AS OUTLINED IN THE OPINION. THE MONOPOLY POWER PORTION OF APOTEX'S MOTION WILL BE RESOLVED SEPARATELY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 3/13/2014. 3/13/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO COUNSEL AND E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

______________________________________________________________________________
:
KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC., :
CIVIL ACTION
et al.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
No. 2:06-cv-1797
:
CEPHALON, INC., et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :__________________________________
:
VISTA HEALTHPLAN, INC., et al.,
:
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
No. 2:06-cv-1833
:
CEPHALON, INC., et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :__________________________________
:
APOTEX, INC.,
:
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
No. 2:06-cv-2768
:
CEPHALON, INC., et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :___________________________________
:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
:
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
No. 2:08-cv-2141
:
CEPHALON, INC.,
:
Defendant.
:
_________________________________________ :__________________________________

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2014, upon consideration of the Direct Purchaser
Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Patent Issues (06-1797, doc. no.
518), the End Payor Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (06-1833, doc. no.
233), and Apotex’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Antitrust Liability and
Monopoly Power (06-2768, doc. no. 601), Cephalon and the Generic Defendants’ responses
thereto, and the replies, and for the reasons detailed in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion,
it is hereby ORDERED that:
 The Direct Purchasers’ motion is GRANTED IN PART, as outlined in the
opinion.
 The End Payors’ motion is GRANTED IN PART, as outlined in the opinion.
 Apotex’s motion is GRANTED IN PART, as outlined in the opinion. The
monopoly power portion of Apotex’s motion will be resolved separately.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
______________________________
Mitchell S. Goldberg, J.