Search for: "Actavis Pharma"
Results 1 - 20
of 243
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 May 2023, 7:51 am
Patent No. 10,130,589 (the ‘589 patent), assigned to UCB Pharma GmbH and LTH Lohman Therapie-Systeme AG (collectively, “UCB”). [read post]
1 Mar 2023, 1:00 am
The Supreme Court also considered it unclear whether Teva and Royalty Pharma have any influence on the interpretation of Article 3(c) (para 20). [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 4:33 pm
Octrooicentrum Nederland (C-484/12) and Actavis v. [read post]
21 Jul 2022, 8:20 am
Hacon HHJ referred to his earlier decision in Kwikbolt Limited v Airbus Operations Limited [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC), where he suggested that focussing on the variant by reference to the integers of the claim can be a useful way of considering an alleged equivalent: “[99] The doctrine of equivalents as explained in Actavis requires the variant to be specified. [read post]
14 Jul 2022, 9:55 pm
Noonan -- Almost four years ago, in a relatively rare occurrence based on there being an insufficient factual record to permit proper appellate review, the Federal Circuit vacated a District Court decision rendering invalid the claims in five patents asserted by Tris Pharma, Inc. against Teva Laboratories FL, Inc. and remanded. [read post]
8 Jul 2022, 3:47 am
Tris Pharma v. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 12:04 pm
Big Pharma has waged a protracted battle against AB 824 in the courts, which has taken yet another turn.[1] In December 2021, Judge Troy L. [read post]
22 Mar 2022, 4:38 am
Merck contended that the lower Irish Courts had adopted the third, qualitative test but that this approach had been expressly rejected in the Teva and Royalty Pharma cases[1]. [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 12:44 am
However, as noted in the Finnish decision, CJEU case law has not yet harmonised interpretation of Article 3(a) under Royalty Pharma and its previous interpretations of Article 3(c), as in Actavis I (C-443/12) and Actavis II (C-577/13) (IPKat).The referralThe Supreme Court of Ireland referred 4 questions to the CJEU, the full text of which are provided in full below* ([2022] IESC 11). [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 12:49 am
The most recent decisions we have from the CJEU on Article 3(c) are Actavis I (C-443/12) and Actavis II (C-577/13) (IPKat). [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 1:04 am
"Sufficiency of medical use claims in other jurisdictionsUntested hypothesis in a clinical trial protocol destroys novelty of a method of treatment claim in Australia (Mylan v Sun Pharma)Canadian Federal Court considers whether Teva's COPAXONE second medical use patents were obvious-to-try (Teva v Pharmascience) [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 6:11 am
Apotex NV, Mylan BV and Sandoz NVAfter the CJEU introduced the concept of “core inventive advance” in its Actavis v. [read post]
27 Apr 2021, 1:53 am
With regard to the Actavis v. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 1:31 am
The Canadian case law on this point seems at odds with both the UK and EPO case law, both of which permit an unexpected technical effect to provide inventive step (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, I-D-10; and Actavis v ICOS [2019] USKC 15). [read post]
26 Oct 2020, 2:49 am
Joining the majority of European courts, the Paris Court of Justice ruled that Eli Lilly’s patent, which relates to the combined administration of pemetrexed disodium and vitamin B12, was infringed by the marketing of Fresenius’ pemetrexed diacid. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 1:48 am
Katherine Moggridge presenting Katherine Moggridge(Three New Square), who acted on behalf of appellants ICOS, discussed Actavis v ICOS, the most recent case in the UK Supreme Court to address obviousness. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
In his reference, the Judge trotted through the English court's and CJEU's case law Article 3(a) - Takeda, Farmitalia, Daiichi, Yeda, Medeva (and its progeny), Actavis v Sanofi, Eli Lilly v HGS, Actavis v Boehringer, - and found that it was clear that something more was required, but what that "something" was was not clear. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 4:24 am
In recent lawsuits, the defendants have included McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen, Purdue Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Endo International, Teva Pharmaceutical, Allergan (formerly Actavis), Watson Pharmaceuticals, Covidien, Johnson & Johnson, CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 11:12 am
IP Enforcement GuestKat Peter Ling, in‘There is No Such Thing as a Free Launch – CJEU Does Not Follow AG on Compensation for Wrongful PI' , reports and critically comments on the latest ruling in Bayer Pharma case C-688/17. [read post]
22 Sep 2019, 11:48 pm
The CJEU ruling in C- 650/17 (Royalty Pharma) and C-114/18 (Sandoz) is very much welcome, and we surely hope it leads us to clarity and not deeper in the mist of SPC interpretation. [read post]
