Williamson v. Albany Med. Ctr.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that pharmaceutical companies have valid reasons for communicating with each other, and concluding that evidence of such communication, without more, is not enough to establish an unlawful conspiracy
• affirming exclusion of expert testimony where only other example of expert’s methodology was “unpublished, non-peer-reviewed working paper that [expert] co-authored during the course of this litigation”
• \[E]xpert testimony without ... a factual foundation cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment.\
• “[T]he argument that, [the generic manufacturer] would have incurred the risk of launching at risk or- that [it] would have won its ... suit against [the patent holder] depends on the theory that ... [the] patents were invalid or not infringed by a generic version.”
• ANDA filed and patent suits lasting years prior to settling

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).