Filter This View

  • Mylan Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    Publication Date: 2023-08-14
    Practice Area: Tax
    Industry: Federal Government | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Jordan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Clint Carpenter, Arthur T. Catterall, United States Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC; Emily J. Giometti, Cincinnati, OH; Lisa M. Rodriguez, Office of District Council, Internal Revenue Service, Newark, NJ; Mary H. Weber, Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel, Cincinnati, OH for appellant.
    for defendant: Gregory G. Garre, Eric Konopka, Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC; Bryan M. Killian, William F. Nelson, James G. Steele, III, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC for appellee.
    Case Number: 22-1193

    Legal expenses incurred by generic drug manufacturers to defend against patent infringement lawsuits were tax-deductible where they were ordinary and necessary business expenses as patent litigation was separate from the FDA approval process for ANDAs.

  • Siemens USA Holdings Inc. v. Geisenberger

    Publication Date: 2021-11-30
    Practice Area: Government
    Industry: Energy | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Jordan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D69629

    Plaintiff appealed district court's dismissal of its preemption and procedural due process claims and denial of a preliminary injunction in action involving Delaware's unclaimed property law and court affirmed the dismissal of the expedited-audit procedural due process claim and vacated the dismissal of the preemption claim and denial of the preliminary injunction.

  • In Re Allied Nevada Gold Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-04-11
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Mining and Resources
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Jordan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D68106

    The bankruptcy court acted properly in dismissing appellants claims as equitably moot, because the plan was substantially consummated and appellants did not timely seek a stay.