Search for: "GLAXOSMITHKLINE"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,806
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Mar 2024, 10:04 am
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2024 WL 348821, No: 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 1:55 am
A federal judge has decided that plaintiffs in litigation over claims that the anti-nausea drug Zofran caused birth defects must pay GlaxoSmithKline $429,000. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 10:55 am
For example, GlaxoSmithKline will only automatically issue refunds to covered entities that are owed an aggregate refund of $100 or more; all covered entities that are owed less than $100 must contact GlaxoSmithKline to request a refund. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 2:00 pm
GlaxoSmithKline LLC (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1227, 1237 (Wendell) [“Perhaps in some cases there will be a plethora of peer reviewed evidence that specifically shows causation. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 4:35 pm
Pix credit hereCates 1980 has distributed its February 2024 Report. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 4:00 am
In other contexts, there have been concerns that double patenting may increase burdens under the Notice of Compliance regime for pharmaceuticals – see for example, Glaxosmithkline Inc. v Apotex Inc, 2003 FCT 687 at 90: “The existence of additional patents allows the patent-holder to bring additional applications, thereby obtaining multiple injunctive periods. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 9:16 am
The Federal Circuit explicitly limited its holding in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 10:00 pm
Hear expert commentary from Tom Irving and Michelle O’Brien of the Marbury Law Group on the risk generic drug companies face when utilizing a skinny label in the aftermath of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Glaxosmithkline LLC v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 9:07 pm
§ 355(j)(2)(A)(viii) (the so-called "skinny label) has in the recent past raised something of a kerfuffle before the Federal Circuit (see "GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 1:47 pm
I want to note here that the facts in this case are different from prior carve-out cases such as GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. [read post]
22 Nov 2023, 10:36 am
Written by Bill Dodge, the John D. [read post]
2 Nov 2023, 8:32 pm
GlaxoSmithKline; Court Declines Invitation [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 9:50 am
Compensation for plaintiffs in the litigation now totals $533.5 million, including additional settlements with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Procter & Gamble. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 4:55 pm
The COVID MVAX trademark application was filed by GlaxoSmithKline. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 11:56 am
GlaxoSmithKline, 905 F.3d 694, 707 (3d Cir. 2018) that such an inquiry is fact-specific and requires the consideration of multiple factors. [read post]
18 May 2023, 8:01 am
GlaxoSmithKline LLC, involving an undoubtedly important and recurring issue involving drug labeling and inducement of patent infringement. [read post]
15 May 2023, 10:14 am
GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, which has come to be known as the “skinny label” case. [read post]
15 May 2023, 9:59 am
GlaxoSmithKline LLC, which presented the question: "If a generic drug's FDA-approved label carves out all of the language that the brand manufacturer has identified as covering its patented uses, can the generic manufacturer be held liable on a theory that its label still intentionally encourages infringement of those carved-out uses? [read post]
15 May 2023, 8:13 am
GlaxoSmithKline LLC, and in some ways the only positive outcome is that the Court has shown it is willing to refuse to take action is cases other than subject matter eligibility (although Justice Kavanaugh indicated he would have granted the petition). [read post]
15 May 2023, 7:21 am
GlaxoSmithKline LLC. [read post]
