• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 54-68 of 2,047 results

No. 88 BRIEF by GenBioPro, Inc

Document GenBioPro, Inc. v. Kristina Raynes, 23-2194, No. 88 (4th Cir. May. 20, 2024)
They cite cases (at 25-26) to the effect that the Court may affirm for any reason apparent in the record, but none supports the argument that a court should consider a forfeited argument.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 62 BRIEF by Patrick Morrisey and Kristina D. Raynes

Document GenBioPro, Inc. v. Kristina Raynes, 23-2194, No. 62 (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 2024)
While a few national pharmacy chains have indicated that they intend to sell mifepristone in some locations, none currently sells the drug in West Virginia. JA322.
None of GenBioPro’s preemption theories can surmount these two obstacles.
None of GenBioPro’s four preemption theories succeed against this backdrop.
None of those support field preemption here.
Laby’s, 471 U.S. 707, 719 (1985), the Court looks for “special features” that warrant field preemption, id. Here, there are none.
43 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2194 Doc: 62 Filed: 04/08/2024 Pg: 59 of 68 concern safety; none relate to access.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

No. 49 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by Pharmaceutical Companies, Executives, and Investors

Document Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore, 24-1576, No. 49 (4th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024)
A reversal of the district court’s decision would set a precarious precedent permitting and encouraging individual states to enact a patchwork of restrictions on pharmaceutical products for which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined additional controls are necessary to protect patient safety.
Congress expanded FDA’s authority in 2007 to encompass drugs with important benefits that, due to their safety risks, would otherwise be unavailable but for an FDA-approved REMS, which can include specific controls called Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU).
FDA takes this mandate seriously and has emphasized the importance of “[a]ssessing the impact of REMS on patient access to the drug and its burden on the healthcare delivery system,” where “burden reflects the additional effort that USCA4 Appeal: 24-1576 Doc: 49 Filed: 10/17/2024 Pg: 45 of 56
development program to compensate for uncertainty regarding the scope of present and future state regulatory requirements), but also would also be unfair to the extent that, as in the case of the North Carolina medication abortion laws, FDA has already considered and rejected the restrictions imposed.
Further, a significant proportion of drug innovation is conducted by smaller biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, such as amici, which lack the funding and resources to devote to the burdensome task of tracking and ensuring compliance with state-by-state restrictions.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 53 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by Reproductive Health Researchers

Document Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore, 24-1576, No. 53 (4th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024)
Follow-up examinations of all 57 participants reflected no sensitization, and none of the women experienced any Rh sensitization impacts during the 11 Rh-positive pregnancies that occurred after.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Verily Life Sciences LLC v. Ravichandran

Docket 4:18-cv-02810, California Northern District Court (May 11, 2018)
Jeffrey S. White, presiding
DivisionOakland
Verily Life Sciences LLC
Ravichandran
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 5 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: SML): Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal (Docket Entry No. ...

Document Ali Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc., et al, 22-15914, No. 5 (9th Cir. Jul. 7, 2022)
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-08017-EMC Northern District of California, San Francisco
Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted.
The parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees on appeal.
A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court.
By: Stephen M. Liacouras Chief Circuit Mediator
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 25 Joint MOTION by GenBioPro, Inc. to extend filing time for all briefs until February 7, 2024 ...

Document GenBioPro, Inc. v. Kristina Raynes, 23-2194, No. 25 (4th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023)
Motion to Extend Time
David C. Frederick Ariela M. Migdal Eliana M. Pfeffer Mary Charlotte Y. Carroll Derek C. Reinbold Abigail E. DeHart
Good cause exists for the 30-day extension for Appellant’s opening brief and joint appendix because of undersigned lead counsel’s other, previously engaged matters between now and the current deadline.
Good cause exists for the further reason that the upcoming holiday season occupies much of the time currently allotted to Appellant to prepare its opening brief and joint appendix.
That response period also coincides with the last month of West Virginia’s 2024 legislative session, which is a perennially demanding time for the Attorney General’s Office.
Type-Volume Limit for Other Documents if Produced Using a Computer: Petition for permission to appeal and a motion or response thereto may not exceed 5,200 words.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 789 ORDER granting 788 ParkerVision's Unopposed Motion to Seal ParkerVision's Reply Brief in Support ...

Document ParkerVision, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al, 6:14-cv-00687, No. 789 (M.D.Fla. Mar. 24, 2025)
Motion to SealGranted
Based on the representations in the motion, having considered Local Rule 1.11 and the Eleventh Circuit’s standard for sealing, and for reasons similar to those previously set forth in prior Orders, see Doc. Nos. 466, 771, 774, the Court finds good cause to allow ParkerVision to file the reply and related exhibits under seal.
On or before March 25, 2025, ParkerVision shall separately file the documents described in the motion under seal.
Upon review, the Court may require that some or all of the information filed under seal be filed in the public record, if it determines that the information is not properly subject to sealing.
Otherwise, this seal shall not extend beyond ninety (90) days after the case is closed and all appeals exhausted.
Copies furnished to: Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-LHP Document 789 Filed 03/24/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID 76038
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 10 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Amy Bryant, M.D. in 24-1576, 24-1600, 24-1617

Document Amy Bryant v. Joshua Stein, 24-1617, No. 10 (4th Cir. Jul. 10, 2024)
In civil, agency, bankruptcy, and mandamus cases, a disclosure statement must be filed by all parties, with the following exceptions: (1) the United States is not required to file a disclosure statement; (2) an indigent party is not required to file a disclosure statement; and (3) a state or local government is not required to file a disclosure statement in pro se cases.
In criminal and post-conviction cases, a corporate defendant must file a disclosure statement.
No. __________ Caption: __________________________________ Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26.1,
(amici curiae do not complete this question) ✔ If yes, identify any publicly held member whose stock or equity value could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding or whose claims the trade association is pursuing in a representative capacity, or state that there is no such member:
✔ If yes, the United States, absent good cause shown, must list (1) each organizational victim of the criminal activity and (2) if an organizational victim is a corporation, the parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of the stock of victim, to the extent that information can be obtained through due diligence.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 8 APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL by Julia C. Payne for Philip E. Berger and Timothy K. Moore in 24-1576, ...

Document Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore, 24-1576, No. 8 (4th Cir. Jul. 8, 2024)
BAR ADMISSION & ECF REGISTRATION: If you have not been admitted to practice before the Fourth Circuit, you must complete and return an Application for Admission before filing this form.
If you were admitted to practice under a different name than you are now using, you must include your former name when completing this form so that we can locate you on the attorney roll.
Electronic filing by counsel is required in all Fourth Circuit cases.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (required for parties served outside CM/ECF): I certify that this document was served on ____________ by [ ] personal delivery; [ ] mail; [ ] third-party commercial carrier; or [ ] email (with written consent) on the following persons at the addresses or email addresses shown:
s/ Julia C. Payne July 7, 2024 Reset Form Print for PDF for Filing
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 10

Document Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore, 24-1576, No. 10 (4th Cir. Jul. 8, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 9

Document Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore, 24-1576, No. 9 (4th Cir. Jul. 8, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 6

Document Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore, 24-1576, No. 6 (4th Cir. Jul. 8, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 7

Document Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore, 24-1576, No. 7 (4th Cir. Jul. 8, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 786

Document ParkerVision, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al, 6:14-cv-00687, No. 786 (M.D.Fla. Mar. 11, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... >>