HOLLANDER v. ORTHO-McNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 10-00836. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20120112b16
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge. AND NOW, this 10 th day of January, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff Bentley A. Hollander's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Docket Nos. 45 & 46), Defendant Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 47), Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Docket No. 48), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion and Reply in Support of his Motion to Dismiss (Docket No
Summary: ORDER RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge. AND NOW, this 10 th day of January, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff Bentley A. Hollander's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Docket Nos. 45 & 46), Defendant Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 47), Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Docket No. 48), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion and Reply in Support of his Motion to Dismiss (Docket Nos..
More
ORDER
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge.
AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff Bentley A. Hollander's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Docket Nos. 45 & 46), Defendant Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 47), Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Docket No. 48), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion and Reply in Support of his Motion to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 49 & 50), Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Constitutional Challenge (Docket No. 51), and Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Docket No. 52), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Docket Nos. 45 & 46) is DENIED.
2. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 47) is GRANTED.
3. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Order is without prejudice to any potential constitutional challenge to the America Invents Act brought by Plaintiff against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Source: Leagle
