Search for: "SmithKline Beecham"
Results 61 - 80
of 436
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2015, 9:17 am
Smithkline Beecham Corp., Phila. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 6:47 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., in which the Supreme Court noted that it was “premised on the belief that exempt employees typically earned salaries well above the minimum wage and enjoyed other benefits that set them apart from the nonexempt workers entitled to overtime pay. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 10:41 am
The antidepressant drug Paxil was deemed safe for teenagers after its manufacturer, SmithKline Beecham (now part of GlaxoSmithKline), published a study in 2001 supporting its use for adolescents. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 9:59 pm
By Kevin E. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 7:22 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2012 U.S. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 6:40 am
See Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 2:37 pm
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 2015 U.S. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 7:03 am
SmithKline Beecham Corporation, the Supreme Court explained that the definition of “sale” in 29 U.S.C. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 10:41 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 11:43 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2006 WL 2194498, at *3 (M.D. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 5:06 am
My post on Wednesday morning has attracted a large number of comments, including many thoughtful contributions, and so I would like to follow up concerning the wider issue of product-by-process claims (independent of the specific Hospira v Genentech case), gathering up, and responding to, some of the comments.In the meantime, readers interested in the decision itself may care to visit the report by Katfriend Suleman Ali (Holly IP) posted on the PatLit blog here, which has a more detailed analysis of… [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
We’ve made no secret of our distaste for the so called “heeding presumption” – that juries may presume that any alternative “adequate” warning would have been heeded by the plaintiff (or, in prescription medical product cases, the prescriber). [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 5:29 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 529 F.Supp. 2d 1294, 1301 & n.9 (D. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 12:15 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 12-2561 (3d Cir. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 9:24 am
The launch of generics pre-patent expiry is a substantial threat to innovators given the dramatic price spiral following the first launch (see commentary in SmithKline Beecham v Apotex). [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 8:36 am
There the Court found assistance from Lord Walker in the House of Lords decision in Synthon v SmithKline Beecham. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 9:38 pm
USA 1:14-cv-00877; filed July 3, 2014 in the District Court of Delaware • Plaintiffs: GlaxoSmithKline LLC; SmithKline Beecham (Cork) Ltd. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 9:43 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2014 WL 804458 (N.D. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
In SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 10:47 am
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, over the dissents of three of its judges, denied en banc review of the case of SmithKline Beecham v. [read post]
