Search for: "Celgene Corp."
Results 41 - 60
of 81
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2019, 9:55 am
With regard to Collabo’s due process and takings claim, the court found itself bound by a parallel decision in Celgene Corp. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2021, 4:39 am
Celgene Corp. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 9:39 am
" The New Jersey magistrate (Bongiovanni ) did not get into these issues: "New Jersey simply does not permit concurrent representation when the interests of two current clients are adverse," quoting Celgene Corp., v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 9:07 am
Celgene Corp. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 12:28 pm
Cir. 2016). (...)In any event, even if Arthrex’s patent had issued priorto the passage of the AIA, our court recently rejected arguments similar to Arthrex’s in Celgene Corp. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 10:21 pm
(“Lannett”), the self-proclaimed “oldest generic drug manufacturer” in the United States (founded in 1942), and Celgene Corp. [read post]
4 Jun 2020, 2:58 am
Sony Corporation, No. 19-601; Celgene Corporation v. [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 9:19 am
Federal Trade Commission said on Friday it approved certain modifications to Bristol Meyers Squibb’s previously approved divestiture agreement and incorporated the modifications into its consent order for the drugmaker’s 2019 acquisition of Celgene Corp. [read post]
11 May 2020, 8:24 pm
Celgene Corp. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 3:02 am
Conflict Minerals: NGOs Say “Ignore Corp Fin Guidance” As noted in this Cooley blog, a number of non-governmental organizations have issued statements emphatically rejecting Corp Fin’s recently updated statement about the effect of the Court of Appeals Decision on the conflict minerals rule – and they’re asking companies to disregard the Corp Fin guidance… – Broc Romanek [read post]
27 Jan 2021, 2:01 pm
In that decision, the court also did not explain its decision but rather simply cited to another prior case, Celgene Corp. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 3:58 pm
Other potential acquirers could include larger pharmaceutical companies like Celgene Corp., Pfizer Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals, which have dabbled in stem cells without making major investments. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 9:46 pm
The Supreme Court decision was almost immediately cited by an Australian Patent Hearing Officer, who found that a claimed method for commercialising inventions does not constitute patentable subject matter under the Australian ‘manner of manufacture’ test: Invention Pathways Pty Ltd [2010] APO 10.The Invention Pathways decision resulted in an official change to Australian Patent Office practice whereby a claimed invention, to be patent-eligible, would not only need to involve a… [read post]
31 May 2018, 9:50 am
Pfizer is now among a group of multiple drug companies (Celgene Corp., Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals) who have settled with the Department of Justice for their use of patient assistance charities. [read post]
10 Aug 2023, 11:48 am
The court quickly rejected this argument based upon its prior precedent in Celgene Corp. v. [read post]
31 May 2018, 9:50 am
Pfizer is now among a group of multiple drug companies (Celgene Corp., Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals) who have settled with the Department of Justice for their use of patient assistance charities. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 6:31 am
Bristol-Myers Squibb’s $74 billion buyout of Celgene Corp. and AbbVie Inc. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 4:56 am
Lundbeck A/S (IP Whiteboard) (Patentology) Focalin XR (Dexmethylphenidate) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Celgene Corp. et al. v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 4:46 am
(Patent Docs) Intuniv (Guanfacine) – US: Shire files patent suit against Teva over its plans to market generic Intuniv (Patent Quality Review Blog) (Patent Docs) Istodax (Romidepsin) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Celgene Corp. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 10:16 am
She also reached the same conclusion using a purposive approach relying on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Celgene Corp. v. [read post]
