In Re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that consumer’s derivative harm was sufficiently direct where “harming competitors was simply a means for the defendants to charge the plaintiffs higher prices”
• concluding that the District Court improperly relied on the record in an earlier case to dismiss Walker Process fraud allegations and noting “the record in this case could be different following' discovery”
• explaining that a plaintiff had antitrust standing, “even though [the plaintiff’s] injuries were derivative of the direct harm experienced by” another party
• requiring that allegations of fraudulent procurement of a patent be pled with particularity
• noting that courts are typically “lenient in allowing scienter issues to withstand [motions to dismiss] based on fairly tenuous inferences, because such issues are appropriate for resolution by the trier of fact”
• noting that courts are typically “lenient in allowing scienter issues to withstand [motions to dismiss] based on fairly tenuous inferences, because such issues are appropriate for resolution by the trier of fact”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).