Opinion ID: 187198
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inability to Purchase Generic Diltiazem HCl from Biovail (Amended Complaint)

Text: The LWD plaintiffs alleged in their amended complaint that Biovail and Forest conspired preemptively to manufacture and distribute their own generic version of Diltiazem HCl while the '791 patent litigation precluded competitors from entering the market, a scheme they abandoned in late 2000 or early 2001 in favor of misusing the '463 patent to exclude potential competitors. [] The defendants argue, and the district court held, the complaint does not relate back and does not allege facts sufficient to establish a claim of injury within the limitation period. Reviewing the court's dismissal de novo, while assum[ing] `all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact),' Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 17 (D.C.Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)), and giv[ing] the plaintiff `the benefit of all reasonable inferences derived from the facts alleged,' id. (quoting Stewart v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 471 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C.Cir.2006)), we affirm.