Search for: "Iovate Health Sciences Research Inc"
Results 1 - 12
of 12
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2007, 4:13 am
Iovate Health Sciences Research Inc., 2007 WL 2789469 (S.D.N.Y.) [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 2:23 am
Hydroxycut is a nutritional supplement manufactured and marketed by Iovate Health Sciences Inc., that claims to help consumers lose weight. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 11:14 am
District Court to find that the FTC overstepped its authority in defining what constitutes “substantiation” of health-related claims in recent consent agreements with Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. and Iovate Health Sciences, Inc. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 10:36 am
Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., No. 10-CV-587 (W.D.N.Y. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 7:16 am
Weight loss claims, like other health claims, require competent and reliable scientific evidence as support, and as we have reported, the FTC recently settled a matter with Iovate Health Sciences. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 6:08 am
Hydroxycut® supplements are manufactured and distributed by Iovate Health Sciences and MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 7:24 am
(Click here for the complaint) We’ve previously blogged about the new substantiation requirements found in recent consent orders against Nestle U.S.A. and Iovate Health Sciences, Inc. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 7:41 am
POM alleges that the FTC has put out these new, obligatory advertising standards for the entire food industry not by going through formal rule-making that would give the industry a chance to have input, but simply by publishing consent orders that it entered into with Nestle U.S.A. and Iovate Health Sciences, Inc. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 12:14 pm
Muscle Ad in Mag invalidates patent Two weeks ago, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld an Eastern District of Texas decision in Iovate Health Science Inc v Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition Inc that a muscle magazine advertisement about a body-building supplement published before the critical date rendered seven of the claims obvious and therefore the patent was invalid. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 12:12 pm
ECJ clarifies rules relating to notice: K-Swiss Inc v OHIM (Class 46) EU Competitiveness Council resolution against counterfeiting and piracy (Class 46) EU states back three-point anti-piracy plan (Managing Intellectual Property) Fuel cells and wind power lead European patent filings for clean energy technology (Green Patent Blog) More non-minor geographical indicator (GI) amendments published (Class 46) No sign of any Community patent progress, despite Verheugen's optimism (IAM) The… [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 8:30 pm
The requester apparently located the documents in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Library) in Trondheim, Norway. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 3:00 am
(GRAY on Claims) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Blocking attorneys from simultaneously litigating and prosecuting patents: In re Deutsche Bank Trust (Patently-O) CAFC: Muscle ad in magazine invalidates patent: Iovate Health Science Inc v Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition Inc (IPKat) (IP Directions) CAFC: If patent troll sends the letter, then a case-or-controversy ‘implicitly’ is asserted: HP v Acceleron (ISinIP) District… [read post]
