Commission v. Cephalon, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the difference between 5.7 and 9 months was “not an especially significant difference”
• explaining that the public interest factor had “little application” because the “use of reverse-payment settlements” was “not a local issue at all” but instead “a question that has nationwide significance”
• explaining that the public interest factor had “little application” because the “use of reverse-payment settlements” was “not a local issue at all” but instead “a question that has nationwide significance”
• finding that the local interest factor was not applicable to a case of “nationwide significance, the resolution of which will have the same effect if rendered by this Court or the” transferee court
• “The employee witnesses located at Cephalon’s headquarters are under the control of Cephalon and could most likely be compelled to testify here.”
• transferee “court’s familiarity with these facts - and the law as applied to these facts - supports transfer . . . for judicial efficiency purposes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).