Search for: "Purdue Pharma L.P."
Results 41 - 60
of 124
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2017, 9:28 am
Purdue Pharma L.P., 211 F.Supp.3d 1058 (N.D. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:09 am
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 5:44 pm
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:16 am
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 8:39 am
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 6:03 pm
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2016, 9:59 pm
Noonan -- Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit handed down its non-precedential decision in Purdue Pharma v. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 10:43 am
Purdue Pharma L.P. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 7:49 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P., the Fourth Circuit recently held that the pre-2010 public disclosure bar prohibits a subsequent relator from bringing a False Claims Act qui tam based upon “facts” that their counsel learned in representing a prior relator who brought a qui tam. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 7:49 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P., the Fourth Circuit recently held that the pre-2010 public disclosure bar prohibits a subsequent relator from bringing a False Claims Act qui tam based upon “facts” that their counsel learned in representing a prior relator who brought a qui tam. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 10:43 am
Plaintiffs-appellantsPurdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. [read post]
31 Jan 2016, 7:57 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 9:39 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 3:06 pm
In re Anthony,414 F.2d 1383 (CCPA 1969) (FDA, not USPTO, is responsible for safety ofdrugs which are sought to be patented); In re Watson, 517 F.2d 465 (CCPA1975) (Congress has given responsibility to FDA, not USPTO, to determinein the first instance whether drugs are safe); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
18 May 2015, 1:14 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P., 2015 U.S. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
We’ve already discussed the peculiar decision in Watts v. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 9:59 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 1:01 pm
Purdue Pharma, L.P., 166 F.Supp.2d 546, 551-552 (E.D. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 3:14 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P., 737 F.3d 908 (4th Cir. 2013). [read post]
