Search for: "Merial Limited"
Results 21 - 40
of 50
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Aug 2010, 8:44 pm
Highlights this week included: CAFC: Genus-species; doctrine of equivalents; and patentable subject matter: Intervet v Merial Limited (Patently-O) (Holman’s Biotech IP Blog) (IP Spotlight) (IPBiz) (Patent Docs) Angiomax (Bivalirudin) – US: The Medicines Company prevails in patent term extension dispute; USPTO acts quickly to comply with court order (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) (IPBiz) Skelaxin (Metaxalone) – US: CAFC: Ignoring non-patentable elements while… [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 12:40 am
(Patent Docs) US: Science Progress article examines impact of gene patents on research (Patent Docs) US: Gene patenting debate continues: round three – Science Friday public debate on National Public Radio (Patent Docs) Products Circadin (Melatonin) – UK: IPO refuses SPC for Circadin (SPC blog) Dovonex (Calcipoltriol) – UK: EWCA upholds Leo Pharma’s patent: LEO Pharma A/S and LEO Laboratories Limited v. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 6:03 pm
Last week I wrote about the TC Heartland case as a mechanism for limiting venue. [read post]
26 Sep 2010, 7:29 pm
Merial Ltd., decided by a Federal Circuit panel on August 4. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 8:30 am
Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1373–74 (Fed. [read post]
8 May 2020, 11:00 am
”[1] Merial Ltd. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 7:47 pm
: AMP et al v USPTO et al; Intervet v Merial (ipeg) US: OGD has put the brakes on ANDA supplement reviews; Will it help push generic drug user fees along? [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 1:48 am
(Patent Baristas) A round up of international events – Access and Benefit Sharing Protocol; review of Para 6 system; concerns with ACTA’s compatibility with TRIPS(Spicy IP) Compromise UN protocol treaty against biopiracy adopted in Japan (IP Watch) (Innovation Law Blog) TRIPS Council discusses efficacy of ACTA, public health amendment (IP Watch) Altering genes in crops (IP Osgoode) Asia Pacific Pharmas moving away from generics (GenericsWeb) Belgium Commercial Court: No faultless… [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am
FactsIn June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am
FactsIn June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am
FactsIn June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 11:56 pm
BackgroundIn 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) instituted revocation proceedings at the High Court seeking to invalidate the patent held by Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) on grounds that the patent was not new (novelty) and lacked an inventive step (obviousness) under section 25(5), (6) and (10) of the South African Patents Act. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:19 am
FactsIn June 2011, Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited (the applicant) initiated revocation proceedings against Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Merial Limited (the respondents) for the annulment and repeal of the Patent 1998/10975 (the patent) in terms of section 61(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978 (the Act) because the invention was not patentable under section 25 of the Act as the invention was not new and it lacked an inventive step. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 12:19 am
Merial Ltd. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 11:14 am
Merial).I wish that the paper had a more explicit conclusion—even if the authors do not feel comfortable claiming that genetic diagnostic patents do preempt development and are thus unpatentable subject matter, they could at least lay out what factors still need to be examined to decide whether this is true—but I still think the paper does a nice job of highlighting the preemption concern and thinking about factors that might be relevant in investigating preemption. [read post]
31 May 2011, 8:38 pm
Merial (EPLAW) Neurontin (Gabapentin) – US: Teva settles Pfizer case on generic epilepsy drug with undisclosed terms (GenericsWeb) Noxafil (Posaconazole) – US: Schering files patent infringement complaint against Sandoz in response to Para IV certification (Patent Docs) Patanol (Olopatadine) – US: Alcon wins Patanol patent infringement lawsuit against Apotex (GenericsWeb) Prandin (Repaglinide) – US: Obama Administration urges Supreme Court to grant certiorari in case… [read post]
8 Jan 2020, 11:16 am
Merial Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282 (Fed. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:16 am
In its decision, the Federal Circuit limited KSR to combination patents and held that “common sense” cannot be used to supply missing limitations. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:09 am
Shaw Industries Group, Inc., et al., No. 16-108 (Achates redux – review of statute-of-limitations for filing IPR requests) Safe Harbor: Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 8:39 am
Merial L.L.C., et al., No. 16-188 (Sequenom redux; also question whether ineligibility is a proper subject of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings) Eligibility: Essociate, Inc. v. [read post]
