• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
8 results

Brown v. Warden, USP Hazelton

Docket 5:17-cv-00181, West Virginia Northern District Court (Dec. 13, 2017)
Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., presiding, Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone
Habeas Corpus
DivisionWheeling
Cause28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Case Type530 Habeas Corpus
Tags530 Habeas Corpus, 530 Habeas Corpus
Brown
Warden, Usp Hazelton
Plaintiff Brown
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al v. Mylan N.V. et al

Docket 1:17-cv-00181, West Virginia Northern District Court (Oct. 26, 2017)
Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley, presiding
Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA)
DivisionClarksburg
FlagsCLOSED
DemandNone
Cause35:145 Patent Infringement
Case Type835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA)
Tags835 Patent, Abbreviated New Drug Application, Anda, 835 Patent, Abbreviated New Drug Application, Anda
Plaintiff Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC
Plaintiff Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH
Plaintiff Sanofi Winthrop Industrie
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 18 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE ...

Document Brown v. Warden, USP Hazelton, 5:17-cv-00181, No. 18 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 16, 2019)
Background The petitioner, Roman A. Brown, a federal inmate designated to USP Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia, filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The respondent then contends that the petitioner cannot meet the second prong of the Wheeler test, namely that the settled substantive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review.
Moreover, the petitioner contends that he has met the third prong under the Wheeler test since the Fifth Circuit denied him permission to file a second or successive petition on August 23, 2016, which was prior to Welch, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) and Mathis.
In the response, the respondent states that the magistrate judge was correct in determining that the petitioner failed to satisfy either the second or third prongs of Wheeler, and that the Court is without jurisdiction to consider the § 2241 petition.
In Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), the Supreme Court held that its decision in Johnson II was retroactive and provided that any prisoner who was sentenced under the residual clause of the ACCA could file a § 2255 petition to seek relief.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Recommending Granting of 10 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ...

Document Brown v. Warden, USP Hazelton, 5:17-cv-00181, No. 15 (N.D.W.Va. Sep. 10, 2019)
Introduction On December 13, 2017, the Petitioner, Roman A. Brown, an inmate formerly incarcerated at USP Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by counsel.
1257 (2016), the Supreme Court held that its decision in Johnson II was retroactive and provided that any prisoner who was sentenced under the residual clause of the ACCA could file a § 2255 petition to seek relief.
Because the Supreme Court announced that Johnson II was a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive on collateral review, even if that decision applied to the Petitioner’s sentence4, he cannot meet the third prong of the Wheeler savings clause.
5In Mathis, the Supreme Court clarified the proper application of the categorical and modified categorical approach used in determining whether prior crimes can be considered as predicate offenses for sentencing enhancements under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and found that Iowa’s burglary statute encompassed conduct broader than that encompassed by federal generic burglary as defined in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 598 (1990) and, thus, did not qualify as a crime of violence under the ACCA.
... And that rule does not change when the statute happens to list possible alternative means of commission: Whether or not made explicit, they remain what they ever were-just the facts, which ACCA (so we have held, over and over) does not care about.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 68 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Document Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al v. Mylan N.V. et al, 1:17-cv-00181, No. 68 (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 21, 2018)
Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 68 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1of2 PagelD #: 1494
NOW COME Plaintiffs Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie (collectively “Sanofi”), and Defendants Mylan N.V., Mylan GmbH,Mylan Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) who hereby stipulate and agree as follows, subject to approval by the Court: 1.
Each party shall bear its own respective attorney fees and costs.
The parties submit to, and the Court does hereby retain, exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action for the purpose of enforcingthis dismissal or any disputes arising related thereto.
12235 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Tel.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 60 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 45 AND MOTION TO EXPEDITE ...

Document Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al v. Mylan N.V. et al, 1:17-cv-00181, No. 60 (N.D.W.Va. Dec. 13, 2017)
Motion to ExpediteGranted
In support, Mylan avers that, on March 23, 2020, the insulin product at issue in this case will transition from being subject to approval under the Hatch-Waxman
An expedited scheduling conference will permit the Court to hear argument on Sanofi’s motion to stay and determine at the earliest possible time whether the looming BPCIA transition date affects this litigation.
P. 26(f) and LR 16.01(c), the parties shall submit a written report on the results of the initial discovery meeting on or before December 22, 2017.
Parties and counsel are subject to sanctions as set forth in LR 37.01 for failure to participate in good faith in the development and submission of a meeting report and proposed discovery plan.
The Court notifies the parties that any pending motions in the case that are fully briefed WILL BE ADDRESSED at the scheduling conference.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against Mylan GMBH, Mylan Inc., Mylan N.V., Mylan Pharmaceuticals ...

Document Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al v. Mylan N.V. et al, 1:17-cv-00181, No. 1 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 26, 2017)
Complaint
Virginia.” Exhibit V. Specifically, the website reports that in “[i]n 2016, Mylan generics saved Id. West Virginia $240 million.” Id.
And whether we’re developing more affordable versions of insulins, biologics or respiratory therapies, better health for a better West Virginia is our goal.
Mylan has: 2 global R&D centers, including one in West Virginia 12 technology-focused R&D sites, including one in Texas and one in Vermont >4,200 active patents >1 ,800 new product submissions pending approval around the world ~3,000 Scientific and Regulatory Affairs experts globally ~1,300 science and technology jobs in West Virginia.
Improved Stability,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie Of Counsel:
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 67 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH, Sanofi-Aventis ...

Document Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al v. Mylan N.V. et al, 1:17-cv-00181, No. 67 (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 20, 2018)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)
NOW COME Plaintiffs Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie (collectively “Sanofi”), and Defendants Mylan N.V., Mylan GmbH, Mylan Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) who hereby stipulate and agree as follows, subject to approval by the Court: 1.
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Rule 41(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all claims and counterclaims between the parties in this case are dismissed without prejudice.
Each party shall bear its own respective attorney fees and costs.
The parties submit to, and the Court does hereby retain, exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action for the purpose of enforcing this dismissal or any disputes arising related thereto.
This _____ day of February, 2018.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search