Search for: "Warner-Lambert Company"
Results 201 - 217
of 217
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2010, 11:51 pm
" Warner-Lambert Co. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 9:56 am
Of course, none of the court opinions on the D&D Law list were really against the drug and medical device companies; no court ever rules that a drug company was negligent or that medical device company has to pay compensation. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 5:56 am
” Id. at *1 (quoting 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B)).In our experience, most companies, when faced with a competitor that they believe is violating the FDCA (such as by off-label promotion) will tip off the FDA and watch as the Agency comes down upon the miscreant like a ton of bricks. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 12:41 pm
But, recognizing the primacy of federal law in this field, the Illinois statute itself protects companies from liability if their actions are authorized by federal law.Id. at 941. [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 3:16 am
Briefs of amici curiae are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon counsel for the parties onor before 2 p.m., 7 days after the brief for the partysupported is filed, or if in support of neither party, within 7days after the petitioner's brief is filed. 06-1498 WARNER-LAMBERT CO., ET AL. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 4:30 am
: (Spicy IP), India: Ranbaxy-Daiichi deal – Opportunities for private equity companies in India: (Profitability through Simplicity), India: (KEI) Cracking open anti-competitive practices in the developing world: complaints, amendments and waivers: (Spicy IP), India: Is it one rule for Indian pharma companies and another one for those from abroad? [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 7:24 pm
Patent No. 4,631,286, where the PTO considered “whether Hoechst-Roussel is eligible to file an application for [PTE] based on a regulatory review conducted by its competitor, the marketing applicant Warner-Lambert, wherein Hoechst-Roussel was not associated with the regulatory review that led to FDA approval for commercial marketing of the approved product. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 4:30 am
Finally, no common-law duty existed to require a drug company to remove its product from the market simply because doctors didn't use it properly:The problem here lies with individual physicians, in certain operating rooms. . . . [read post]
30 May 2008, 9:09 am
: (Spicy IP), India: DCGI preparing document to implement patent-registration linkage: (Spicy IP), New Zealand: Generic pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of NZ IP laws and medicines regulations: (International Law Office), Uganda: Cipla licenses ARV technology into Uganda: (Afro-IP), US: Money saved through generic prescriptions: (GenericsWeb), US: Government plans to keep close tab on drug patent settlements: (GenericsWeb), US: FTC reports 14 deals to delay generics in 2007:… [read post]
6 Jun 2008, 6:49 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: YouTube – Prince demands removal of song from YouTube, Radiohead demand it is put back online: (Techdirt), (Electronic Frontier Foundation), (The Trademark Blog), Japan planning fair use provision: (Michael Geist), (Techdirt), (IP Justice), (Patry Copyright Blog), Judge rejects Yoko Ono’s request for preliminary injunction… [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 1:30 pm
The administration is supporting the manufacturer in that case, Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 2:55 am
June 2023 has just passed, and the newly minted Unified Patent Court is of course still on everyone’s lips. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 9:26 am
Norwich supplies a principled rationale for granting injunctions against non-parties who facilitate wrongdoing (see Cartier, at paras. 51-55; and Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2008, 8:39 am
Then there was the oral argument in Warner Lambert v. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:39 am
Each company had marketing authorisations for various indications, and is conducting clinical trials for other indications. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 12:00 pm
And the plaintiff's health care providers darn well knew it - they settled out (relatively cheaply) for $700,000, and the plaintiff (successfully) went for the big score against the drug company. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 1:22 pm
Ed. 2d 726 (2016) (concurred in opinion) Court’s determination not unreasonable and counsel not deficient Warner v. [read post]
