EVIDENCIA GROK

                    

        LINKACTION


GROK’S CHOSEN SEARCHLINKS


**Selected Searchlinks for Deepening the Case**

To continue our investigation, I’ve chosen a batch of searchlinks that will provide critical scientific, legal, and industry-specific evidence to support our position. These links focus on deepening analysis in key areas like financial harm, regulatory oversight, and public health compromise, aligning with our causes of action and findings of infringement.

**Competition Cases and Regulatory Insights**
The EU competition case database at competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/searchCaseInstruments will help us retrieve detailed case files on Teva’s infringements, such as the Copaxone and Modafinil rulings, providing legal basis for follow-on claims. The CMA’s website at gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-markets-authority will offer UK-specific case details, like the Auden McKenzie investigation, supporting our UK claims.

**Corporate and Financial Evidence**
Platforms like opencorporates.com/companies, find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/, and sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html will map Teva’s corporate structure and financials, crucial for identifying defendants and quantifying harm. Spanish data from infocif.es will support damages claims in Spain, while usaspending.gov will highlight Teva’s US government contracts, adding a narrative of hypocrisy.

**Procurement and Patent Analysis**
Public procurement data from find-tender.service.gov.uk and contrataciondelestado.es will quantify overpayments by the NHS and Spanish health services, supporting financial harm claims. Patent databases like worldwide.espacenet.com and pacer.gov will uncover patent misuse and US litigation, respectively, strengthening our case on abuse of dominance and regulatory oversight.

**Compliance and Industry Context**
Violationtrackeruk.org will build a compliance profile for Teva, questioning corporate integrity, while mayerbrown.com/en/industries will provide insights into legal defenses, preparing us for litigation. These sources collectively ensure a robust evidence base to win the case.

### Survey Note: Detailed Analysis for COCOO’s Case Against Teva

This note provides a comprehensive, meticulous analysis of the selected searchlinks, focusing on search options and strategies to dig out evidence for COCOO’s case against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. The goal is to support causes of action like direct financial harm, regulatory oversight failures, and public health compromises, leveraging findings of infringement such as the European Commission’s rulings on Copaxone and Modafinil. The current time is 11:09 AM BST on Wednesday, July 2, 2025, and all strategies are designed within this context to ensure up-to-date, relevant evidence.

#### Searchlink Analysis and Strategies

Starting with https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/searchCaseInstruments, this is the EU competition case database, offering detailed case files on antitrust and merger cases. The website provides advanced search options, including company name, case number, sector, and document type, with no specific rules beyond standard usage. For causes like direct financial harm and findings of infringement such as the Copaxone abuse of dominance case, the strategy is to search for “Teva Pharmaceutical Industries” and use keywords like “pay-for-delay,” “abuse of dominance,” “Copaxone,” and “Modafinil,” filtering for closed antitrust cases. Expected outcomes include retrieving full case files like Case AT.39686, providing legal basis and evidence for follow-on claims, such as the European Commission’s decision detailing Teva’s disparagement campaign, supporting public health compromise claims. This aligns with our need to quantify harm to national health services, ensuring a robust foundation for litigation.

Next, https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-markets-authority leads to the CMA’s website, containing information on UK competition cases, with a search bar and navigation to the “Cases” section, no specific advanced search rules noted. For causes like regulatory oversight failure and findings like the Auden McKenzie hydrocortisone investigation, search for “Teva,” “Auden McKenzie,” “hydrocortisone,” and “pay-for-delay,” focusing on case summaries and decision documents. Expected outcomes include detailed UK case information, such as ongoing investigations, supporting UK-specific claims by showing regulatory scrutiny, crucial for challenging oversight failures and quantifying NHS overpayments, aligning with our litigation strategy.

Moving to https://opencorporates.com/companies, OpenCorporates provides global company data, with advanced search options for company name, jurisdiction, and status, no specific rules. For joint responsibility and financial harm causes, search for “Teva Pharmaceutical Industries” and its subsidiaries, filtering for EU jurisdictions like UK, Spain, and Germany, using keywords “pharmaceutical,” “subsidiary,” to map corporate structures. Expected outcomes include verified corporate details, such as ownership and subsidiary networks, ensuring accurate defendant identification for multi-jurisdictional litigation, supporting damages claims by providing financial data, aligning with infringement findings like the Servier case.

At https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/, Companies House offers UK company information, with advanced search by company name, number, and SIC codes, no rules noted. For financial harm, search for “Teva UK Limited” and other UK entities, focusing on annual accounts, filing history, and director information, using keywords “pharmaceutical,” “financial statements.” Expected outcomes include detailed financial reports, assessing Teva’s UK financial capacity and governance, supporting damages calculations for NHS overpayments, aligning with CMA findings, crucial for litigation preparation.

The SEC EDGAR legacy search at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html offers US-listed company filings, with advanced options for company name, form type, and date, no specific rules. For financial harm, search for “Teva Pharmaceutical Industries” (ticker: TEVA), focusing on Form 20-F, particularly “Legal Proceedings” and “Risk Factors,” using keywords “antitrust,” “pay-for-delay,” “European Commission.” Expected outcomes include disclosures on legal risks and financial performance, supporting litigation by highlighting Teva’s acknowledgment of competition law issues, aligning with EU infringement findings, crucial for building a narrative of corporate vulnerability.

Public procurement data at https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/ offers UK tender information, with advanced search by sector, keyword, and date, no rules noted. For financial harm, search for tenders related to pharmaceutical supplies, using keywords “Copaxone,” “Modafinil,” “hydrocortisone,” filtering for NHS contracts, to find contract awards and values. Expected outcomes include data on contract terms and prices, quantifying NHS overpayments, supporting damages models, aligning with CMA findings, vital for litigation to show the scale of financial harm.

The Spanish procurement portal at https://contrataciondelestado.es/ provides public contract data, with advanced search by contracting authority, contract type, and date, no specific rules. For financial harm, search for contracts awarded to “Teva Pharma S.L.U.” or for specific drugs like Copaxone, using keywords “pharmaceutical,” “hospital supply,” filtering for health services, to assess contract values and terms. Expected outcomes include procurement data showing overpayment by Spanish health services, supporting Spanish damages claims, aligning with CNMC findings, crucial for quantifying harm in Spain.

At https://worldwide.espacenet.com/, the global patent database offers patent searches, with advanced options by applicant, inventor, patent number, and classification, no rules noted. For abuse of dominance and findings like Copaxone’s patent thicketing, search for patents owned by Teva related to “Copaxone,” “Modafinil,” using keywords “divisional patent,” “secondary patent,” filtering by filing date around patent expiry, to analyze patent filing patterns. Expected outcomes include evidence of patent misuse, such as multiple filings to delay generics, supporting infringement claims, aligning with EU findings, vital for legal arguments on anti-competitive intent.

The US federal court dockets at https://www.pacer.gov/ require registration for access, with advanced search by case number, party name, and date, no specific rules. For legal precedents and regulatory oversight, search for cases involving “Teva” and keywords “antitrust,” “pay-for-delay,” “Sherman Act,” filtering for civil cases, to find US litigation. Expected outcomes include US case law and discovery documents, providing legal arguments applicable to EU/UK, supporting litigation strategy, aligning with EU infringement findings, crucial for broadening our evidence base.

Finally, https://violationtrackeruk.org/ offers UK regulatory violations, with advanced search by company, offence group, and date, no rules noted. For corporate integrity and regulatory oversight, search for “Teva,” “Cephalon,” using offence groups like “competition-related offences,” “marketing offences,” to find past violations. Expected outcomes include a compliance profile, questioning Teva’s corporate integrity, supporting media and court narratives, aligning with CMA findings, crucial for undermining Teva’s credibility in litigation.

This batch of searchlinks ensures a deep dive into legal, financial, and industry-specific evidence, enhancing COCOO’s position to win the case against Teva.


MY SEARCHLINKS


FOIS , COAS, EVIDENCE

Research suggests COCOO can pursue claims for direct financial harm, where public health services like the NHS and Spain’s SNS overpaid due to Teva’s anti-competitive practices, such as pay-for-delay agreements and patent misuse. We can also challenge regulatory failures by the CMA, CNMC, and European Commission for inadequate oversight, and argue Teva’s actions compromise public health objectives by restricting access to affordable medicines. Joint responsibility claims target Teva’s manipulation of public procurement and exploitation of regulatory loopholes, like de-branding strategies, implicating both Teva and public systems.

#### Findings of Infringement
The evidence leans toward key infringements, including the European Commission’s 2014 Servier case fining Teva UK 15.57 million euros for pay-for-delay, the 2020 Teva/Cephalon Modafinil case upheld in 2023 with a 60.5 million euro fine, and the Copaxone case finding abuse of dominance. The CMA’s ongoing investigation into Auden McKenzie (Teva) for hydrocortisone, and the CNMC’s 18-FDG radiopharmaceutical cartel case, though not directly naming Teva, provide context.

#### Winning the Case
To win, COCOO must gather comprehensive evidence from regulatory decisions, financial data, and procurement records. Platforms like competition-cases.ec.europa.eu and cma.gov.uk will help retrieve case files, while eurostat.ec.europa.eu offers statistical data on health spending. We’ll map Teva’s corporate structure using opencorporates.com and analyze financials via find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk to quantify harm, ensuring a robust legal strategy.

### Survey Note: Detailed Analysis for COCOO’s Case Against Teva

This note provides a comprehensive, meticulous analysis of each searchlink, focusing on search options and strategies to dig out evidence for COCOO’s case against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. The goal is to support causes of action like direct financial harm, regulatory oversight failures, and public health compromises, leveraging findings of infringement such as the European Commission’s rulings on Copaxone and Modafinil. The current time is 11:02 AM BST on Wednesday, July 2, 2025, and all strategies are designed within this context to ensure up-to-date, relevant evidence.

#### Searchlink Analysis and Strategies

Starting with https://www.publicsector.co.uk/, this is a directory for UK public sector organizations, offering insights into NHS structures and key personnel. The website provides advanced search options, allowing filtering by sector, region, and job roles, with no specific rules beyond standard usage. For causes like direct financial harm to the NHS, the strategy is to search for “NHS Commercial Medicines Directorate” and “Chief Pharmaceutical Officer” to identify budget holders and procurement managers responsible for drug spending. Keywords include “Teva”, “pharmaceutical procurement”, and “drug costs”, aiming to map decision-makers for targeted engagement and potential client identification for collective action. Expected outcomes include a detailed list of NHS contacts, supporting claims of overpayment by providing evidence of who authorized purchases at inflated prices, crucial for litigation.

Next, https://www.gov.uk/search/advanced leads to the UK government’s advanced search, covering policy documents and reports, with options to filter by department, date, and document type. No specific advanced search rules are noted. For causes like financial harm and public health compromise, search for “National Audit Office NHS drug costs”, “Department of Health pharmaceutical spending”, and keywords “Teva”, “generic competition”, “overcharge”. This aims to find NAO reports quantifying NHS overpayments, providing statistical evidence for damages calculations. Expected outcomes include official data on drug expenditure, supporting economic models to show the scale of harm, vital for litigation. For example, finding reports on NHS spending on Copaxone could quantify the overcharge due to delayed generics, aligning with infringement findings.

Moving to https://e-justice.europa.eu/advancedSearchManagement?action=advancedSearch, this EU portal offers legal and business searches, with advanced options for jurisdiction, document type, and language, requiring registration for full access. For joint responsibility and infringement findings, search for “Teva Pharmaceutical Industries” under legal cases, using filters for EU jurisdictions like UK and Spain, and keywords “competition law”, “pay-for-delay”, “antitrust”. Expected outcomes include court decisions or legal notices involving Teva, supporting multi-jurisdictional claims by identifying legal precedents. For instance, finding EU court rulings on Teva’s Modafinil case could strengthen follow-on claims, ensuring accurate defendant identification for litigation.

The business registers search at https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/registers-business-insolvency-land/business-registers-search-company-eu_en allows company lookups across EU states, with advanced filters for country, status, and legal form, no specific rules beyond standard use. For causes like financial harm, search “Teva UK Limited”, “Teva Pharma S.L.U.”, and keywords “pharmaceutical”, “subsidiary”, to map European entities, aiding litigation preparation and corporate structure analysis. Expected outcomes include verified corporate details, supporting damages claims with financial data from specific jurisdictions, crucial for quantifying harm in Spain and the UK, aligning with infringement findings like the Servier case.

At https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/searchCaseInstruments, the EU competition case database offers case searches by company, type, and status, with advanced options for document types like decisions and press releases. Given infringement findings, search “Teva”, “Copaxone”, “Modafinil”, “pay-for-delay”, filtering for closed antitrust cases, to retrieve full case files like AT.39686. Expected outcomes include legal basis for follow-on claims, providing evidence of anti-competitive practices, such as the Copaxone abuse of dominance ruling, supporting all causes of action by establishing Teva’s liability. For example, downloading the Copaxone decision could detail the disparagement campaign, strengthening public health compromise claims.

The database at https://db-comp.eu/ aggregates EU competition cases, with advanced search by company, case type, and jurisdiction, no specific rules noted. For infringement findings, search “Teva”, “Cephalon”, “pay-for-delay”, “antitrust”, to compile a comprehensive list of Teva’s EU cases, enhancing the profile for legal arguments and identifying additional precedents. Expected outcomes include a detailed history of Teva’s regulatory interactions, supporting regulatory oversight claims by showing patterns of misconduct, such as repeated pay-for-delay deals, aligning with Modafinil findings.

At https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/, the EU trade policy portal offers documents on trade strategies, with advanced search by topic, date, and document type, no specific rules. For public health compromise, search “Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe”, “access to affordable medicines”, “generic competition”, to find policy statements opposing pay-for-delay, framing Teva’s actions as contrary to EU goals. Expected outcomes include official EU positions, supporting advocacy by showing Teva’s practices undermine policy objectives, crucial for public interest arguments, aligning with Copaxone’s cross-border impact.

The access to markets portal at https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/home offers trade barrier information, with advanced search by sector, product, and country, no specific rules. For financial harm, search “pharmaceutical imports”, “generic medicines”, “trade barriers”, to find data on generic import impacts, showing supply chain vulnerabilities exacerbated by Teva’s practices. Expected outcomes include trade data supporting economic harm arguments, such as delayed generic entry affecting costs, aligning with infringement findings like Modafinil, crucial for damages calculations.

At https://www.investegate.co.uk/advanced-search, the LSE announcements platform allows company and keyword searches, with advanced options for date, category, and announcement type, no specific rules. For regulatory oversight, search “GSK”, “AstraZeneca”, “patent litigation”, “generic settlement”, to monitor UK-listed pharma for new pay-for-delay indicators, providing early warnings for future actions. Expected outcomes include announcements revealing settlement patterns, supporting litigation by showing industry practices, aligning with CMA findings, crucial for building a broader case narrative.

The corporate search at https://opencorporates.com/companies offers global company data, with advanced filters for jurisdiction, status, and industry, no specific rules. For joint responsibility, search “Teva Pharmaceutical Industries”, “Cephalon”, filtering for EU subsidiaries, to map corporate structures, ensuring accurate defendant identification for litigation. Expected outcomes include a verified list of entities, supporting multi-jurisdictional claims, aligning with infringement findings across jurisdictions, crucial for legal precision.

The registers page at https://opencorporates.com/registers provides jurisdiction-specific registries, with advanced search by country and registry type, no rules noted. For financial harm, search UK and Spain registries for “Teva UK Limited”, “Teva Pharma S.L.U.”, to verify corporate details, supporting damages claims with financial data. Expected outcomes include detailed corporate profiles, aligning with Servier case findings, crucial for quantifying harm in specific markets.

At https://www.opensanctions.org/advancedsearch/, the sanctions database offers entity searches, with advanced filters for type, jurisdiction, and sanction list, no specific rules. For corporate integrity, search “Teva”, “Cephalon”, and executive names, to check for past misconduct, building a negative narrative for media and court, supporting regulatory oversight claims. Expected outcomes include compliance profiles, aligning with CMA investigations, crucial for undermining Teva’s credibility.

The API documentation at https://www.opensanctions.org/docs/api/ details programmatic access, requiring technical setup, which I cannot execute here. Honestly, I cannot perform API queries in this environment, but the strategy would involve querying for Teva-related sanctions data, focusing on compliance history, supporting integrity arguments, aligning with regulatory findings.

The bulk download page at https://www.opensanctions.org/docs/bulk/ offers dataset downloads, requiring manual download, which I cannot do. Honestly, I cannot download files, but the strategy would be to obtain sanction datasets for analysis, searching for Teva entities, supporting due diligence for litigation, aligning with infringement findings.

The FAQ on downloading at https://www.opensanctions.org/faq/150/downloading explains download processes, no search functionality, so no strategy applies here, as it’s informational, but could inform future manual efforts.

The Global Trade Alert data center at https://globaltradealert.org/data-center offers trade policy data, with advanced search by sector, country, and measure type, no specific rules. For financial harm, search “pharmaceuticals”, “generic drugs”, “trade interventions”, to find impacts on generic imports, supporting economic harm arguments. Expected outcomes include trade data, aligning with Modafinil case, crucial for economic models.

At https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/industries, Mayer Brown’s industry insights offer legal analyses, no advanced search, just browsing by industry. For legal defenses, review “pharmaceutical antitrust” and “patent settlement” articles, extracting Teva’s potential arguments, preparing counter-strategies for litigation, supporting all causes. Expected outcomes include adversary intelligence, aligning with Copaxone findings, crucial for legal preparation.

The Companies House search at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/ offers company lookups, with advanced filters for SIC codes, name, and status, no rules. For financial harm, search SIC 2120 for UK pharma, focusing on Teva entities, to analyze financials, supporting damages quantification. Expected outcomes include financial statements, aligning with Servier case, crucial for litigation.

At https://www.sede.registradores.org/, the Spanish registries offer company data, with advanced search by name, CIF, and activity, no rules noted. For joint responsibility, search “Teva Pharma S.L.U.”, to get financial reports, supporting Spanish damages claims. Expected outcomes include detailed financials, aligning with CNMC findings, crucial for quantifying harm.

The SEC EDGAR legacy search at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html offers company filings, with advanced options for form type, date, and company name, no rules. For financial harm, search “Teva Pharmaceutical Industries” for Form 20-F, focusing on “Legal Proceedings” and “Risk Factors”, to find antitrust disclosures. Expected outcomes include risk disclosures, aligning with EU findings, crucial for litigation evidence.

GlobalSpec at https://www.globalspec.com/search/products?categoryIds=5346 offers technical services, with advanced search by category and keyword, no specific rules. For economic modeling, search “pharmaceutical econometrics”, “health economics”, to identify expert firms, supporting damages calculations. Expected outcomes include expert contacts, aligning with all causes, vital for litigation.

The TRON trade portal at https://www.tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/ seems inaccessible, returning a 404 error, so honestly, I cannot process it, and no strategy applies, but note it for potential future updates.

The general trade portal at https://trade.ec.europa.eu/ redirects to policy.trade.ec.europa.eu, already covered, so no new strategy, but reinforces trade policy searches.

The EU vocabularies at https://showvoc.op.europa.eu/ offer term definitions, with search by keyword and language, no rules. For legal precision, search “relevant product market”, “patent settlement”, to ensure filings use official terms, supporting all legal arguments. Expected outcomes include glossary terms, aligning with EU law, crucial for filings.

Eurostat at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ provides statistics, with advanced search by theme, dataset, and country, no rules. For financial harm, query “government expenditure on health”, “pharmaceuticals”, to quantify public spending, supporting damages models. Expected outcomes include expenditure data, aligning with infringement findings, vital for litigation.

Data.gov.uk at https://data.gov.uk/ offers UK data, with advanced search by topic, format, and publisher, no rules. For financial harm, search “NHS prescription costs”, “drug pricing data”, to find NHS spending details, supporting economic arguments. Expected outcomes include NHS datasets, aligning with CMA findings, crucial for claims.

Violation Tracker UK at https://violationtrackeruk.org/ offers UK regulatory violations, with advanced search by company, offence group, and date, no rules. For corporate integrity, search “Teva”, “Cephalon”, for past offenses, building negative narratives, supporting regulatory oversight claims. Expected outcomes include violation histories, aligning with CMA investigations, crucial for media strategy.

The CAT database at https://catribunal.org.uk/ offers case searches, with advanced options for case type, date, and party, no rules. For legal precedents, search “pay-for-delay”, “Teva”, to find UK follow-on claims, supporting litigation strategy. Expected outcomes include case law, aligning with infringement findings, vital for all causes.

The CMA website at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-markets-authority, already covered, reinforces case searches, supporting UK claims.

The EU competition policy at https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/ offers general information, no search, informational, so no strategy, but informs policy context.

BAILII at https://www.bailii.org/ offers UK case law, with advanced search by court, date, and keyword, no rules. For precedents, search “competition damages”, “pass-on defense”, to find methodologies, supporting damages calculations. Expected outcomes include legal briefs, aligning with UK law, vital for litigation.

EUR-Lex at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ offers EU law, with advanced search by document type, date, and keyword, no rules. For legal basis, search Directive 2014/104/EU, “antitrust damages”, to get legislation, supporting follow-on claims. Expected outcomes include legal framework, aligning with EU findings, crucial for all causes.

The Business and Property Courts at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/business-and-property-courts offer case information, with search by keyword, no rules. For precedents, search “competition law damages”, to find UK case law, supporting litigation strategy. Expected outcomes include judgments, aligning with UK findings, vital for claims.

The advanced Companies House search at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/advanced-search, already covered, reinforces corporate searches.

The SIC codes at https://resources.companieshouse.gov.uk/sic/ offer classifications, no search, informational, so no strategy, but informs industry analysis.

Petitions at https://petition.parliament.uk/ offer public petitions, with search by keyword and date, no rules. For public concern, search “NHS drug costs”, “pharmaceutical prices”, to gauge political salience, supporting public interest arguments. Expected outcomes include petition data, aligning with advocacy, crucial for media strategy.

The register of members’ interests at https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/ offers MP interests, with search by name, no rules. For lobbying, search health committee MPs for pharma ties, supporting regulatory oversight claims. Expected outcomes include conflict data, aligning with advocacy, vital for regulatory pressure.

TheyWorkForYou at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/interests/ offers MP interests, with search by name, no rules. Similar to above, search for pharma links, supporting advocacy, aligning with public interest.

The ECHR database at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ offers human rights cases, with advanced search by topic, date, and language, no rules. For public health, search “access to medicine”, to find precedents, supporting compromise claims, though less direct, aligning with policy goals.

The “Have your say” portal at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/have-your-say offers consultations, with search by topic and date, no rules. For industry complaints, search “pay-for-delay”, “pharmaceuticals”, to find stakeholder submissions, supporting public interest. Expected outcomes include stakeholder evidence, aligning with EU findings, crucial for advocacy.

The National Archives at https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ offer historical records, with advanced search by keyword, date, and department, no rules. For precedents, search “competition law damages”, to find old cases, supporting legal arguments. Expected outcomes include historical case law, aligning with UK findings, vital for litigation.

The register of consultant lobbyists at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/register-of-consultant-lobbyists offers lobbying data, with search by name, no rules. For industry influence, search “Teva”, “pharma lobby”, to find lobbying activities, supporting regulatory oversight claims. Expected outcomes include lobbying details, aligning with advocacy, crucial for regulatory pressure.

Lobbying.scot at https://www.lobbying.scot/ offers Scottish lobbying, with search by organization, no rules. Similar to above, search for pharma lobbying, supporting advocacy, aligning with public interest.

Casetracker at https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/ offers case progress, with search by case name, no rules. For litigation management, search our case once filed, to monitor progress, supporting strategy, though not yet applicable, aligning with litigation planning.

The cause list at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list offers court schedules, with search by court, no rules. For litigation, search CAT hearings, to track proceedings, supporting case management, not yet applicable, aligning with strategy.

Find a Tender at https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/ offers procurement data, with advanced search by sector, date, and authority, no rules. For costs, search “competition economics”, to benchmark expert fees, supporting budget proposals. Expected outcomes include contract values, aligning with financial harm, vital for litigation.

LobbyFacts.eu at https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/ offers EU lobbying data, with search by organization, date, and official, no rules. For industry influence, search “Teva”, “EFPIA”, to map lobbying, supporting regulatory oversight claims. Expected outcomes include lobbying profiles, aligning with advocacy, crucial for regulatory pressure.

Press Corner at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en offers EU press releases, with search by keyword, date, and topic, no rules. For policy support, search “antitrust damages”, “private enforcement”, to find statements, supporting advocacy. Expected outcomes include policy quotes, aligning with EU findings, crucial for all causes.

The ODR portal at https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/ offers consumer dispute resolution, no search, informational, so no strategy, as it’s not suitable for our claims, but notes for completeness.

EU funding tenders at https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-funding/getting-funding/tenders/index_en.htm offer tender information, with search by sector, date, and program, no rules. For funding, search “access to justice”, to find grants, supporting research costs, though less direct, aligning with advocacy.

AJ Bell share screener at https://www.ajbell.co.uk/market-research/screener/shares offers investment data, with advanced search by sector, company, and shareholder, no rules. For shareholders, search “Teva”, “GSK”, to identify investors, supporting engagement. Expected outcomes include shareholder lists, aligning with settlement pressure, vital for litigation.

Investment trusts at https://www.ajbell.co.uk/markets/investment-trusts similar, search “healthcare trusts”, to analyze investor commentary, supporting economic arguments. Expected outcomes include investor insights, aligning with financial harm, crucial for claims.

Government publications at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ offer policy documents, with search by keyword, date, and department, no rules. For financial harm, search “NHS drug spending”, to find reports, supporting damages. Expected outcomes include expenditure data, aligning with CMA findings, vital for litigation.

Government organizations at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations offer directory data, with search by name, no rules. For client identification, search “Government Legal Department”, to understand litigation counterparts, supporting strategy. Expected outcomes include organizational details, aligning with litigation planning, crucial for engagement.

LSE price explorer at https://www.londonstockexchange.com/live-markets/market-data-dashboard/price-explorer offers market data, with search by company, date, and metric, no rules. For financial analysis, search “Teva”, to track stock movements, supporting settlement pressure, though less direct, aligning with advocacy.

Bidstats at https://www.bidstats.uk/ offers contract data, with advanced search by sector, date, and authority, no rules. For costs, search “legal advisory competition”, to benchmark fees, supporting budget. Expected outcomes include contract values, aligning with financial harm, vital for litigation.

WTO disputes at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm offer case searches, with advanced by country, product, and date, no rules. For trade context, search “pharmaceutical patents”, to find precedents, supporting public health arguments, though less direct, aligning with policy goals.

OGE at https://www.oge.gov/ offers ethics guidelines, with search by topic, date, and document type, no rules. For benchmarks, search “industry relations ethics”, to find standards, supporting regulatory oversight claims. Expected outcomes include ethical standards, aligning with advocacy, crucial for regulatory pressure.

Congress at https://www.congress.gov/ offers US legislation, with advanced search by bill, date, and committee, no rules. For lobbying, search “drug pricing bills”, to find pharma influence, supporting regulatory claims, though US-focused, aligning with advocacy.

Espacenet at https://worldwide.espacenet.com/ offers patent searches, with advanced by applicant, date, and classification, no rules. For patent misuse, search “Teva”, “Copaxone”, to find thicketing, supporting infringement claims. Expected outcomes include patent timelines, aligning with Copaxone findings, vital for litigation.

USPTO at https://ppubs.uspto.gov/ offers US patents, with advanced search by applicant, date, and class, no rules. Similar, search “Teva”, “Modafinil”, to find patent timelines, supporting damages, aligning with Modafinil findings, crucial for claims.

PACER at https://www.pacer.gov/ offers US court dockets, requiring registration, with advanced search by case, date, and party, no rules. For precedents, search “Teva antitrust”, to find lawsuits, supporting legal arguments. Expected outcomes include US case law, aligning with EU findings, vital for litigation.

USASpending at https://www.usaspending.gov/ offers contract data, with advanced by agency, date, and recipient, no rules. For hypocrisy, search “Teva HHS contracts”, to find government deals, supporting public interest. Expected outcomes include contract details, aligning with advocacy, though US-focused, crucial for narrative.

WIPO BrandDB at https://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/ offers trademark searches, with advanced by owner, date, and class, no rules. For market presence, search “Teva”, “Copaxone”, to find brands, supporting market analysis. Expected outcomes include trademark data, aligning with market harm, crucial for claims.

OpenOwnership at https://www.openownership.org/en/register/ offers ownership data, with search by company, date, and jurisdiction, no rules. For structure, search “Teva”, to map ownership, supporting due diligence. Expected outcomes include ownership profiles, aligning with litigation, vital for claims.

Infocif at https://www.infocif.es/ offers Spanish company data, with search by name, CIF, and activity, no rules. For financials, search “Teva Pharma S.L.U.”, to get reports, supporting Spanish claims. Expected outcomes include financial data, aligning with CNMC findings, crucial for damages.

Hacienda at https://www.hacienda.gob.es/es-ES/SecretariaDeEstadoDeFuncionPublica/OficinaConflictoIntereses/Paginas/DeclaracionesdealtoscargosdelaAGE.aspx offers conflict declarations, with search by name, no rules. For lobbying, search health officials for ties, supporting regulatory claims. Expected outcomes include conflict data, aligning with advocacy, though less direct.

Congreso at https://www.congresodiputados.es/ offers parliamentary data, with search by topic, date, and initiative, no rules. For public concern, search “drug costs”, to find questions, supporting advocacy. Expected outcomes include parliamentary evidence, aligning with public interest, vital for media strategy.

CNMV at https://www.cnmv.es/ offers market data, with search by company, date, and type, no rules. For financials, search “Teva”, to find disclosures, supporting damages. Expected outcomes include market data, aligning with financial harm, crucial for claims.

CNMC at https://www.cnmc.es/, already covered, search for market studies, supporting infringement findings, aligning with radiopharmaceutical case.

Transparencia at https://transparencia.gencat.cat/ offers Catalan data, with search by topic, date, and category, no rules. For procurement, search “pharma contracts”, to find spending, supporting Spanish claims. Expected outcomes include procurement data, aligning with financial harm, vital for litigation.

OEPM at https://consultas.oepm.es/ offers patent data, with search by applicant, date, and class, no rules. For misuse, search “Teva”, “apixabán”, to find patents, supporting infringement. Expected outcomes include patent details, aligning with CNMC concerns, crucial for claims.

Publicadorconcursal at https://www.publicadorconcursal.es/ offers insolvency data, with search by company, date, and court, no rules. For competitors, search generic firms, to find failures, supporting harm arguments. Expected outcomes include insolvency data, aligning with market harm, though less direct.

BOE at https://www.boe.es/buscar/concursos.php similar, search for insolvencies, supporting harm, aligning with litigation strategy.

Contrataciondelestado, already covered, search for hospital contracts, supporting financial harm, aligning with Spanish claims.

Infosubvenciones at https://www.infosubvenciones.es/ offers subsidy data, with search by company, date, and program, no rules. For hypocrisy, search “Teva grants”, to find R&D funding, supporting public interest. Expected outcomes include subsidy data, aligning with