Search for: "C Lillie"
Results 61 - 80
of 441
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2020, 12:33 am
In the dispute between Lilly and Genetech, this question was addressed by the UK High Court. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 2:58 am
Lilly counterclaimed that the divisional patent was invalid (Lilly v Genentech [2020] EWHC 261 (Pat)). [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 4:00 am
Pfizer Canada ULC, 2020 FC 1, at para. 42. [3] See Sections 27(3)(b) and 28.3 of the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4 [4] Burton Parsons Chemicals, Inc v Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd, [1976] 1 SCR 555 at 563 [5] Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc, 2008 SCC 61 at paragraph 37, [2008] 3 SCR 265; see also Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée v Eurocopter, société par actions simplifiée, 2013 FCA 219 at paragraph 65; Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC v Eli Lilly… [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 7:26 am
As for the SPC, [2019] EWHC 388, Lilly sought a declaration that Genentech’s SPC was invalid. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
"So thus, Case C-121/17 was born. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 2:10 am
Genentech (C-239/19) of 5 September 2019. [read post]
1 Sep 2019, 7:31 pm
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was instrumental in investigating and opposing instances of the dismissal of academics throughout the late 19th and early 20th c., largely focusing on aspects of procedural fairness and the implementation of uniformly implemented policies. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 2:05 am
ITC and Eli Lilly and Co. v. [read post]
13 Aug 2019, 6:03 am
Trade marks In AG opinion regarding Aceto Balsamico leaves a sour taste for Modena, GuestKat Alex Woolgar reports on the AG opinion in Case C-432/18, in which the AG advises the CJEU to rule that the terms “Aceto”, “Balsamico” and “Aceto Balsamico” should not be qualified for protection as protected geographical Indications (PGIs). [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 12:43 am
MiscKat Annsley Merelle Ward dedicates a touching obituary for the late Sir Henry Carr QC, where colleagues share their memories of Mr Justice Carr.PREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATENever Too Late 228 [Week ending 21 Jul] Celebrity misadventures in trade mark land | Chanel’s ‘Double C’ trade mark loss in China – an unacceptable conclusion? [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 9:04 am
., Ltd. lost a trade mark infringement case regarding its ‘Double C’ logo in China.Katfriend Thomas Key reports on the recent decision of the US Supreme Court in Iancu v. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 5:43 am
Case date: 19 June 2019 Case number: C/09/54 1424 / HA ZA 17-1097 Court: District Court of The Hague A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 3:00 am
Three drug companies – Amgen, Merck, and Eli Lilly – and the nation’s largest advertising group announced they were suing the administration over its new policy of requiring prescription drug manufacturers to disclose list prices in television ads. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 3:48 am
Dáire McCormack-GeorgeIntroduction This blog constitutes the third instalment in a series of blogs about the nature of work and the purpose of labour regulation, with a specific focus on work in the EU. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 3:14 am
Many will recall that Paul acted in the famous L’Oréal v Bellure (C-487/07) "smell-a-like" case at the ECJ (as it then was). [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 8:44 am
Ixekizumab was developed by Lilly after the priority date of the 822 patent and is authorised for the treatment of psoriasis. [read post]
9 Feb 2019, 3:45 am
Case date:16 January 2019 Case number: C/09/533354 /HA ZA 17-581 Court: District Court of The Hague A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 2:01 am
The new year sees the issue of yet another UK court case applying the doctrine of equivalents as established by the UK Supreme Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly ([2017] UKSC 48) ("Actavis"). [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 4:00 am
In the UK, the Supreme Court in 2017 released its decision in Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co [2017] UKSC 48 which allowed for variants in claim construction. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 6:09 am
Before actually dealing with Teva, he walked the audience through Medeva, Actavis v Sanofi (C-443/12) as well as Eli Lilly v HGS (C-493/12) (both judgments issued on 12 December 2013). [read post]
