Search for: "Merck, Sharp & Dohme Limited"
Results 1 - 20
of 77
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2021, 4:15 am
A group of intellectual property professors; GlaxoSmithKline plc; and Biogen Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Corning Incorporated, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed amicus briefs. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 6:07 pm
Under the 1970 Agreement, outside of the US and Canada Merck US could only use the name ‘Merck’ if accompanied with due prominence by the rest of its company name ‘Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp’ or a geographical indication (i.e. [read post]
23 Jun 2019, 7:46 pm
Merck Sharp & Dohme (Fed. [read post]
Foreign Judgments: The Limits of Transnational Issue Estoppel, Reciprocity, and Transnational Comity
26 May 2021, 8:40 pm
Written by Professor Yeo Tiong Min, SC (honoris causa), Yong Pung How Chair Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University In Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Merck KGaA [2021] SGCA 14, a full bench of the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the limits of transnational issue estoppel in Singapore law, and flagged possible fundamental changes to the common law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in… [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 3:30 am
Last week saw another Michaelmas decision from Mr Justice Arnold in the Patents Court in the form of Merck Sharpe and Dohme Limited v Shionogi & Co Limited [2016] EWHC 2989 (Pat). [read post]
19 Jun 2019, 8:26 am
The Board’s recent decision in Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp., 367 NLRB No. 122 (May 7, 2019) highlights the differences that can arise as a result of the collective bargaining process in the terms and conditions of employment for employers with a divided workforce of non-union and union-represented employees. [read post]
6 Jun 2019, 9:16 am
In a recent decision, Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp, 367 NLRB No. 122, issued on May 7, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) said No. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 12:08 am
Guest post by Professor Yeo Tiong Min, SC (honoris causa), Yong Pung How Chair Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (formerly known as Merck & Co, Inc) v Merck KGaA (formerly known as E Merck) [2021] 1 SLR 1102, [2021] SGCA 14 (“Merck”), noted previously, is a landmark case in Singapore private international law, being a decision of a full bench of the… [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 1:18 pm
The Supreme Court discussed in Wyeth and later clarified in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. [read post]
21 May 2019, 6:18 am
In Merck Sharpe & Dohme v. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 1:06 am
Ilarion TomarovThe Ukrainian Supreme Court in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Aurobindo Pharma Limited has recently introduce a bold approach to applying interim injunctions in disputes between originators and generics over the registration of patented pharmaceuticals. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 9:56 am
by Dennis Crouch Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 11:47 am
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 2022 WL 4541687 (Fed. [read post]
10 Jan 2019, 10:00 pm
Below is a brief summary of issues before the Court last week: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 7:01 pm
The case is noteworthy because it contains a cogent and well-reasoned exploration of many of the issues flowing from the Supreme Court’s decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 2:08 pm
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 9:36 am
Only yesterday the IPKat reported on Case C-207/10 Paranova Danmark A/S, Paranova Pack A/S v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 12:22 pm
Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp., No. 11-4358-cv (2nd Cir., Jan. 30, 2013). [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 12:57 am
Eszter SzakácsCo-author: Zsolt Lengyel, Danubia Patent and Law Office Just a few months before the CJEU’s judgment in C-121/17 Teva UK Ltd and Others v Gilead Sciences Inc. came out a the Metropolitan Court of Budapest handed down a decision regarding Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp’s (MSD) application for an SPC re the combination of ezetimibe and rosuvastatin. [read post]
18 Sep 2020, 7:25 am
That said, one is mindful of the fact that as noted by South Africa’s constitutional court in relation to patent validity challenges in Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and 2 Other [2019] ZACC 41 (paragraph 100), in the absence of substantive IP examination systems to balance the monopoly conferred by IPRs, validity challenges should be encouraged as they offer an avenue for IPRs to be tested. [read post]
