Search for: "Astrazeneca, L.P."
Results 1 - 20
of 35
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2022, 6:00 am
Cir. 2021) 2021-1729 AstraZeneca AB and AstracZeneca Pharmacueticals LP (AstraZeneca) sued Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Kindeva Drug Delivery L.P. [read post]
8 Dec 2021, 8:52 am
The outcome AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (collectively, “AstraZeneca”) sued Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Kindeva Drug Delivery L.P. [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 12:46 pm
Dey, L.P., 287 F.3d 1097, 1104–05 (Fed. [read post]
3 Oct 2015, 4:13 pm
AstraZeneca Pharm., L.P., 958 So. 2d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 12:41 pm
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., 351 S.W.3d 168 (Ark. 2009), the Arkansas Supreme Court construed that state’s safe harbor – for "permitted" activity − as precluding consumer protection claims involving statements made in advertising for FDA-approved products:Arkansas’s [statute] contains a safe harbor provision that specifically exempts conduct that is permitted under laws administered by a federal agency. . . . [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
The following post is exclusively the work of the Reed Smith side of the blog.Sometimes the smallest, least significant type of lawsuit can illustrate cracks in the edifice of the largest, most consequential litigation. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 11:21 am
AstraZeneca, L.P., et al, the plaintiff allegedly suffered debilitating complications from prolonged use of the company’s anti-psychotic medication Seroquel. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 11:21 am
AstraZeneca, L.P., et al, the plaintiff allegedly suffered debilitating complications from prolonged use of the company’s anti-psychotic medication Seroquel. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
AstraZeneca, L.P., Civ. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 3:30 am
A district court in Mississippi remanded the action to state court holding that because the State is not a citizen for purposes of establishing diversity, the existence of the State as a real party in interest destroys subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA The State of Mississippi, through its Attorney General, brought a state court action against pharmaceutical companies AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., AstraZeneca, L.P., AstraZeneca… [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 10:56 am
In AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. v Apotex Corp., the Court held for defendant generic manufacturers on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2) claim based on defendants’ existing ANDA filings, and claims premised on presumed future labeling amendments were not ripe for adjudication. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 10:56 am
In AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. v Apotex Corp., the Court held for defendant generic manufacturers on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2) claim based on defendants’ existing ANDA filings, and claims premised on presumed future labeling amendments were not ripe for adjudication. [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 7:02 am
MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 517 F.3d 1284, 1290 (Fed. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, 832 A.2d 1241, 1243 (Conn. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 1:40 am
AstraZeneca v. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 12:14 pm
United StatesDocket: 10-150Issue(s): Whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction to review a federal prisoner’s motion based on newly discovered evidence that the prisoner is mentally retarded and therefore constitutionally ineligible for execution, even if that evidence does not negate the prisoner’s guilt.Certiorari-Stage DocumentsOpinion below (5th Circuit)Petition for certiorariAmicus brief for Advocates for Human Rights Today’s second petition of the day is: Title: Sprint… [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 12:37 am
(Patent Docs) Clobex (Clobetasol propionate) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed following a Paragraph IV certification: Galderma Laboratories, L.P. et al. v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 10:14 pm
Cir. 2001); see Astrazeneca Pharms. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 10:51 am
See Astrazeneca Pharm. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
As we said last week, because it’s a Dechert case, we can’t comment directly on Clark v. [read post]
