Search for: "SmithKline Beecham Limited"
Results 1 - 20
of 160
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2023, 1:47 pm
” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 2:44 pm
” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2023, 4:44 am
Putting aside the idiosyncratic chapter by the late Professor Berger, most of the third edition of the Reference Manual presented guidance on many important issues. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 8:54 am
” Notably, since Hudgens, the Supreme Court reinforced the limits of the Auer doctrine. [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 10:38 am
Cir. 2013) (citing SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2021, 12:12 pm
The outcome was a vacating of the district court's grant of JMOL and a lot of discussion of drug "skinny labels": GlaxoSmithKline LLC and SmithKline Beecham (Cork) Ltd. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 1:01 pm
Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 863 So. 2d 201, 208–09 (Fla. 2003). [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 1:01 pm
Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 863 So. 2d 201, 208–09 (Fla. 2003). [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 5:01 am
”[15] By closing off inquiry into the limits of the DPA methodology, Judge Campbell managed to stumble into a huge analytical gap he blindly ignored, or was unaware of. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 3:19 pm
” Synthon BV v SmithKline Beecham plc [2006] RPC 10 (Lord Hoffman). [read post]
3 Nov 2019, 9:04 pm
” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2019, 5:03 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 US 142, 155 (2012) which was further quoting Bowen v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 8:36 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
29 May 2019, 12:22 pm
If the defendant "knew the risk and decided it was best not to remove it" then that is a factor in favor of maintaining the status quo and granting an injunction (see Aldous LJ in SmithKline Beecham v Apotex [2003] FSR 31 at [40]; see also Arnold J in Warner-Lambert v Actavis [2015] EWHC 72 at [133]). [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 9:46 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., at 120:16-25 (N.D. [read post]
20 Oct 2018, 8:50 am
”6 Other authors have similarly acknowledged that the need to avoid false positive results from multiple testing is an important rationale for composite end points: “Because the likelihood of observing a statistically significant result by chance alone increases with the number of tests, it is important to restrict the number of tests undertaken and limit the type 1 error to preserve the overall error rate for the trial. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 8:27 am
SmithKline Beecham (and a string of other sources, including George Orwell), the court emphasized that an agency “should not change an interpretation in an adjudicative proceeding where doing so would impose new liability on individuals for past actions which were taken in good-faith reliance on agency pronouncements. [read post]
9 Feb 2018, 7:54 am
Co., 350 F.3d 1371 (finding “superimposed” to describe a structural relationship and not a process); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 1:36 am
Whether domain expertise can safeguard against hindsight bias is not entirely clear, experts – specifically judges – are certainly not immune to hindsight bias.[3]Deliberation in groups does not seem to reliably reduce hindsight bias, but the research is limited and restricted to small groups (three people). [read post]
6 Aug 2017, 3:37 pm
" n100n97 Canal Barge, slip op. at *1; Calzaturficio, 201 F.R.D. at 37; Smithkline Beecham Corp., slip op. at *9; Taylor, 166 F.R.D. at 361.n98 Canal Barge, slip op. at *1; Smithkline Beecham Corp., slip op. at *9; Taylor, 166 F.R.D. at 361.n99 Canal Barge, slip op. at *2.n100 Rainey, 26 F. [read post]
