Search for: "BAYER PHARMACEUTICALS CORP." Results 121 - 140 of 171
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am by Bexis
., 712 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2013), and Harden Manufacturing Corp. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 9:00 am
A step behind: (Spicy IP),Proposals for ISPs to terminate infringers go (even more) global: (LawFont.com),Five ways to minimize risk of copyright liability from citizen media: (IP ADR Blog), Pharma & BiotechPharma & Biotech - GeneralMillennium Pharmaceuticals spent $1.28 million on lobbying for patent reform and biologics legislation in 2007: (Patent Docs),New Thai Minister may review compulsory licences on cancer drugs: (Intellectual Property… [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 12:54 pm by Bexis
Bayer Corp., 2003 WL 1748460, at *1 (E.D. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm by Law Lady
Pharmaceuticals: GLAXO AND SUBSIDIARY SETTLE CIVIL, CRIMINAL CASES FOR $750 MILLION, United States v. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 12:00 pm by Bexis
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., 2011 WL 3566855 (N.D. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 10:09 pm by FDABlog HPM
District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 11:29 am by Bexis
Schering-Plough Corp., 842 A.2d 174, 177-78 (N.J. [read post]
27 Dec 2007, 7:09 am
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2007 WL 1521138 (D.N.J. [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
Bayer Corp., 398 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 2005) (applying Illinois law); Thomas v. [read post]
15 Mar 2008, 7:00 am
India: Gene silencing: (Spicy IP), India: US Patent reform implications for Indian Pharma: (Spicy IP), India: Generic pharmaceutical industry in the spotlight: (International Law Office), India: Supreme Court refuses to stay a Gujarat High Court decision restraining Ranbaxy from airing its controversial ads directed against Paras Pharma's 'Moov' brand: (Spicy IP),India: Patents on ARV drugs could increase costs: (Generic Pharmaceuticals & IP),US: Survey… [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm by Bexis
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 938 A.2d 417 (Pa. 2007) (3-2 decision with two concurrences in the result), was not even cited in Maya. [read post]