Search for: "SmithKline Beecham Limited"
Results 21 - 40
of 160
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2007, 10:00 pm
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 2007 WL 178564 (E.D. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 10:41 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 11:50 am
In his remarks before thousands of employees on the USPTO campus, Secretary Locke said "David is taking on a big job… Promoting and protecting U.S. [...]...USPTO Agrees to Withdraw Claims & Continuations Rules PRESS RELEASE: GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) today announced that it has reached agreement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to join the USPTO’s motion to dismiss its litigation over Final Regulations published in August 2007… [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 5:53 pm
It is impossible not to recognize the new [...]...USPTO Agrees to Withdraw Claims & Continuations Rules PRESS RELEASE: GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) today announced that it has reached agreement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to join the USPTO’s motion to dismiss its litigation over Final Regulations published in August 2007 (Triantafyllos Tafas and SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham PLC and… [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 11:52 am
USPTO Agrees to Withdraw Claims & Continuations Rules PRESS RELEASE: GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) today announced that it has reached agreement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to join the USPTO's motion to dismiss its litigation over Final Regulations published in August 2007 (Triantafyllos Tafas and SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham PLC and Glaxo Group Limited vs. [read post]
3 Nov 2012, 8:44 am
Christopher regularly worked 60 hours per week, but received no overtime pay because SmithKline Beecham classified him as an “outside salesman. [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]
11 Apr 2023, 2:44 pm
” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 3:34 pm
” [Cover letter dated May 5, 1999 from Claire Khan, PhD at SmithKline Beecham to Jena Weber (HFD-510) regarding Phase IV commitments, Page 3]. [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]
5 Apr 2016, 2:12 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015). [2] Supreme Court Docket No. 15-1055. [3] 35 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm
In Part One of this series, we began to analyze the recent decision from the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 658 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. 2003)) or the Sixth Circuit (Garcia v. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 1:25 pm
”).2footnote 2 relates to undeveloped arguments:Although ContentGuard fashions its arguments tothis court as objections to “practicing the priorart/prosecution disclaimer,” see, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 38,41, 43 (internal quotation marks omitted), ContentGuardprovides only bare assertions of prosecution disclaimerthat we will not review, see SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 7:38 am
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from putting its new claims and continuation rules into effect (SmithKline Beecham Corporation et al. v. [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]
17 Sep 2009, 4:30 am
Or it could simply be that plaintiffs often would rather settle with the doctor (who's an flesh-and-blood person that a jury may like) and take their chances with a large corporate defendant instead.Whatever the reason for this phenomenon, it's got us thinking about the limits to duty. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 10:03 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. – eligibility of “outside salesmen” of pharmaceutical companies for overtime pay Tues., April 17: 11-5683 — Dorsey v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm
In SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
