Search for: "Arthrex Inc." Results 41 - 60 of 240
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2021, 1:25 pm by greggshapiro.admin
On November 8, 2021, the United States Attorney’s Office in Boston announced that Arthrex Inc., a large, privately-held medical device company, agreed to pay $16 million to resolve a False Claims Act qui tam case alleging that Arthrex used the guise of royalties to pay millions of dollars in kickbacks to a prominent Colorado orthopedic surgeon, David Millett. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 1:27 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
In view of this court’s decisionin Arthrex, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 4:19 pm by Gene Quinn
Smith and Nephew, Inc., because the Office will seek rehearing en banc in Arthrex. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 7:09 am by Eileen McDermott
Government, Arthrex, Inc., and Smith & Nephew, Inc. each submitted petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc asking the full Federal Circuit to reconsider its October 31 ruling in Arthrex v. [read post]
31 Jan 2020, 1:53 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
This court recently decided this issue in Arthrex,Inc. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2020, 4:15 am by Bradley Olson
On April 6, Arthrex, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 1:15 pm by Rebecca Tapscott
Subsequently, in October 2019, the CAFC issued a decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. [read post]
14 May 2021, 4:15 am by Eileen McDermott
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman dissented in part from a decision authored by CAFC Judge Moore yesterday, explaining that, while she agrees that New Vision Gaming’s request for vacatur and remand of two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 3:04 pm by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch Arthrex, Inc. v. [read post]
22 May 2021, 12:16 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Corephotonics argues that the Board issued its decision in violation of the Appointments Clause because the Board’s decision came after this court’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. [read post]