Mylan Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that, under New Jersey law, extrinsic evidence is always admissible to aid in interpreting contracts
• finding that summary judgment in a breach of contract action “is appropriate only where the contractual language is unambiguous—i.e., subject to only one reasonable interpretation.”
• explaining that a party is “obligat[ed] to set out sufficient evidence of bad intention––i.e., to demonstrate an issue of material fact––in order to survive a motion for summary judgment”
• listing causes for termination that require repayment of the Transfer Bonus as, in pertinent part, “serious misconduct” or “violation of company policy”
• applying New Jersey law, and also citing to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, to hold that, “without knowledge of the specific contractual right, [defendant] cannot be deemed to have intentionally interfered with that right”
• “Under New Jersey law, a plaintiff must demonstrate interference with a contractual relationship that is knowing, intentional, and wrongful.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).