Search for: "SmithKline Beecham Limited"
Results 101 - 120
of 160
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jun 2010, 2:15 pm
The court, however, remanded the case "for the limited purpose of determining the correct inventorship" because an action under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 1:37 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 538 F. [read post]
10 May 2010, 5:06 pm
Whilst the claim for misuse of private information has widespread application, in particular as a response to the activities of the tabloid media, there are, nevertheless, significant limitations to this type of claim. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 5:03 pm
It has long been recognised in the civil context that there should be no distinction between documents read by the court and documents read out in open court – now that it is no longer the practice of counsel to read documents aloud in open court or to lead the judge through the evidence, document by document (see SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] 4 All ER 498). [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 4:02 pm
" A claim of false advertising may be based on at at least one of two theories (Time Warner Cable v DIRECTV (2007)):that the challenged ad is literally falsethat the ad, while not literally false, is nevertheless likely to mislead or confuse consumersThe claimant must demonstrate that the false or misleading representation involved an inherent or material quality of the product and that the injuries to be redressed are the result of "public deception" (Johnson & Johnson v… [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 4:30 am
Smithkline Beecham Corp., No. 09-50244, 2010 WL 1010591 (5th Cir. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 12:23 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 744273, slip op. (11th Cir. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 10:58 am
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179, 194-95 (E.D. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 10:51 am
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 11:52 am
USPTO Agrees to Withdraw Claims & Continuations Rules PRESS RELEASE: GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) today announced that it has reached agreement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to join the USPTO's motion to dismiss its litigation over Final Regulations published in August 2007 (Triantafyllos Tafas and SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham PLC and Glaxo Group Limited vs. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 5:53 pm
It is impossible not to recognize the new [...]...USPTO Agrees to Withdraw Claims & Continuations Rules PRESS RELEASE: GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) today announced that it has reached agreement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to join the USPTO’s motion to dismiss its litigation over Final Regulations published in August 2007 (Triantafyllos Tafas and SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham PLC and… [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 11:50 am
In his remarks before thousands of employees on the USPTO campus, Secretary Locke said "David is taking on a big job… Promoting and protecting U.S. [...]...USPTO Agrees to Withdraw Claims & Continuations Rules PRESS RELEASE: GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) today announced that it has reached agreement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to join the USPTO’s motion to dismiss its litigation over Final Regulations published in August 2007… [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 1:56 pm
PRESS RELEASE: GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) today announced that it has reached agreement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to join the USPTO’s motion to dismiss its litigation over Final Regulations published in August 2007 (Triantafyllos Tafas and SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham PLC and Glaxo Group Limited vs. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 2:14 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2008 WL 3286976 (S.D. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 4:30 am
Or it could simply be that plaintiffs often would rather settle with the doctor (who's an flesh-and-blood person that a jury may like) and take their chances with a large corporate defendant instead.Whatever the reason for this phenomenon, it's got us thinking about the limits to duty. [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 10:54 pm
"); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 11:22 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 538 F. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 6:12 am
The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes’ perpetuates popular misperceptions surrounding gene patents (Holman's Biotech IP Blog) Australian pharmaceutical patent term extension for patches and implants: N V Organon; LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG and Schwarz Pharma Limited (Patent Baristas) China: Obama Administration and compulsory licensing in China (China Hearsay) China: Forty-two of Simcere’s generic drugs enter China’s Essential Drug List… [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 1:04 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2008 WL 2491965, at *7 (S.D. [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 1:04 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2008 WL 2491965, at *7 (S.D. [read post]
