Impax Laboratories State Court Decisions

Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Turing Pharmaceuticals AG

Filed: November 16, 2016

State: New York
Court: New York Southern District Court
Case Number: 1:2016cv03241

OPINION AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim (Count V of the Amended Complaint) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for oral argument is DENIED as moot. The C lerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions, Doc. 60 & 65. It is SO ORDERED. re: 60 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Unjust Enrichment Claim. filed by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG, 65 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument…

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.

Filed: October 25, 2016

State: New Jersey
Court: New Jersey District Court
Case Number: 2:2016cv02526

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 10/25/16. (DD, )

IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC. et al

Filed: May 27, 2016

State: New Jersey
Court: New Jersey District Court
Case Number: 2:2015cv06934

OPINION/ORDER granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion to Stay; that Impax shall provide the Court with status updates regarding the ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,094,427, every sixty (60) days starting June 17, 2016; that Impax shall notify the Court within ten (10) days of any disposition of the ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,094,427. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 5/26/16. (DD, )

linus Aruliah v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filed: December 21, 2015

State: California
Court: California Northern District Court
Case Number: 3:2014cv03673

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT signed by Hon. James Donato on December 21, 2015. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2015)

Impax Laboratories Inc. et al v. Lannett Holdings Inc. et al

Filed: December 1, 2015

State: Delaware
Court: Delaware District Court
Case Number: 1:2014cv00984

MEMORANDUM OPINION providing claim construction for disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,750,237 and 7,220,767. Within five days the parties shall submit a proposed order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 12/1/2015. (nms)