Search for: "May et al v. Pfizer Inc et al"
Results 41 - 60
of 83
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Nov 2015, 3:34 am
Never Too Late 70 [week ending on Sunday 1 November] – Case T-309/13 Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou v OHIM, Gaba International Holding GmbH | Sixteen millions IPKats | Tomaydo-Tomahhdo LLC v George Vozray et al | Lookalike packaging | Parasite copying | 3D printing | Labouring the point? [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 1:29 pm
There, the court addressed coverage under Pfizer’s 2004-2005 insurance tower for an underlying securities class action, Morabito, et. al v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 11:57 pm
(IP Dragon) Texas jury finds against Google in Linux patent case, determines damage award of $5,000,000: Bedrock Computer Technologies v Google et al /Bedrock?????? [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 10:59 am
Backus-Naur et al., 2013 ONSC 582 Harmony Consulting Ltd. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 2:57 am
Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc et al. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 8:31 am
See Perfect 10, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 7:33 am
In In re Pfizer Inc. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 4:30 am
Target Corp. et al., 2015 Il. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 2:28 am
In its latest decision on this topic, Amgen Inc. et al. v. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 4:02 am
Earlier this year, the Irwig et al. study confirmed (“Persistent Sexual Side Effects of Finasteride for Male Pattern Hair Loss“) what the Traish et al. study (“Adverse side effects of 5? [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
” otherwise “. . . the court may be heading into unknown waters without a chart.[429] An example of an application of this reading of Free World can be found in Pfizer Canada Inc. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 9:10 pm
Pfizer, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 5:36 pm
Minn. 2008)(noting that some but not all courts have concluded relative risks under two support finding expert witness’s opinion to be inadmissible) XYZ, et al. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 11:11 am
Martinez (08-1371) Pfizer Inc. v. [read post]
2 May 2008, 7:00 am
: (Patent Baristas), US: How to avoid a permanent injunction: the lessons of Amgen v Hoffman-LaRoche: (Patent Docs), US: Jarvik Heart’s PTE request based on PMA shell/module submission dates flatlines; ruling on initiation of PTE ‘review period’ mirrors FDA policy for ‘fast track’ products: (FDA Law Blog) Pharma & Biotech - Products Kytril (Granisetron) – Exclusivity ‘parking’ still… [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 8:07 am
Pfizer, Inc., et al., No. 5:11-CV-69-DCB-JMR, 2013 U.S. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
Pfizer, 196 F. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 12:13 pm
Pfizer, 196 F. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 1:02 am
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 16, 2012 Decided January 22, 2013 No. 11-1265 AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 1:02 am
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 16, 2012 Decided January 22, 2013 No. 11-1265 AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. [read post]
