Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Decided
Docket Number
Term
Cert. Denied
Lower Court Opinion
Questions Presented
Whether, for purposes of standing under Article III, a plaintiff’s speculation that he might have paid less for treatment if a pharmaceutical product were packaged differently is sufficient to establish an economic injury in fact.
Case Updates
Cert. petition denied
May 21, 2018
U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to review whether plaintiffs have standing to pursue class action alleging that prescription eye drops dispensed too much medication
April 23, 2018
Click here to view the amicus brief filed jointly by the U.S. Chamber, American Tort Reform Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Jeffrey S. Bucholtz and Paul Alessio Mezzina of King & Spalding LLP served as co-counsel for the amici.
Case Documents
- Opinion -- Cottrell v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (Third Circuit).pdf
- Cert. Petition -- Alcon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cottrell (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Appendix -- Alcon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cottrell (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- U.S. Chamber, et al. Amicus Brief -- Alcon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cottrell (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Washington Legal Foundation Amicus Brief -- Alcon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cottrell (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf