Search for: "Apotex" Results 201 - 220 of 1,051
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jun 2007, 1:18 am
Apotex manifest fundamental misunderstandings of chemical practice case law. [read post]
11 Mar 2012, 3:32 pm by Mark Summerfield
Back in December, Apotex Pty Ltd was unsuccessful in opposing an application by AstraZeneca for a preliminary injunction barring the sale by Apotex of a generic version of CRESTOR (see Preliminary Injunction for CRESTOR—Not All ‘Tablets’ are Equal). [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 6:08 pm
The district court ruled that the Nasonex patent was valid, but the Apotex product did not infringe on Merck's chemical composition. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 8:11 am
A reasonable fact-finder could only conclude that Apotex has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the skilled artisan would indeed have been so motivated to combine the prior art to produce the besylate salt of amlodipine. [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 6:40 am by Mark Summerfield
Appeal Decision: Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 102 (18 July 2012) Appeal from: Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 846 See also: Australian Federal Court ‘Evergreens’ ARAVA for Sanofi-Aventis Claim construction – second medical use claims directed to treating specific ailments – Novelty – application of the ‘reverse… [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 1:40 am
At the hearing, Apotex argued that U.S. [read post]
18 Dec 2016, 9:17 pm by Patent Docs
Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2013, 9:59 pm by Patent Docs
.; Apotex Inc.; Apotex Corp. [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 9:06 pm by Patent Docs
• Defendants: Actavis LLC; Apotex, Inc.; Apotex Corp.; Bedford Laboratories, Inc.; Dr. [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 8:24 pm by Patent Docs
Apotex Inc. 1:13-cv-02022; filed December 11, 2013 in the District Court of Delaware • Plaintiffs: Pfizer Inc.; UCB Pharma GmbH • Defendant: Apotex Inc. [read post]
8 Feb 2007, 12:00 am
In re Apotex Technologies, Inc., Serial Nos. 76449597 and 78429952 (January 29, 2007) [not precedential].The Examining Attorney argued that "I" stands for "Internet," and that Applicant's own website describes Apotex's goods as being for use by pharmacists who utilize the Internet as a feature of the goods. [read post]
14 Sep 2013, 5:30 am by Barry Sookman
U.K. for less government role in cyber security http://t.co/VFgpZjZDAl -> Two techies arrested for theft, sale of patented software in India http://t.co/VCiOjQNjAi -> Patent Troll Tries To Reanimate Dead Patent With Desperate Ploy Over Effective Typo http://t.co/DHcbwVCZkO -> Aereo Tells Judge Not to Mind FilmOn Injunction http://t.co/G8oArjfcCB -> Apotex loses unjust enrichment appeal, Apotex Inc. v. [read post]