Search for: "SmithKline Beecham Limited" Results 101 - 120 of 160
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Sep 2010, 8:29 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. [read post]
22 May 2014, 5:00 am
  Ironically, although plaintiffs are quick to harp on the Agency’s limitations, they seem to be more likely than defendants (although both sides do it) to try to exacerbate those limitations by demanding depositions that would distract the FDA’s employees from their regular jobs.The leading FDA case is Giza v. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 7:04 am
– CAFC decision in Agilent Techs v Affymetrix concerning claims pertaining to ‘microarray hybridization’ (Gray on Claims) US: Counterclaims dismissed in Alzheimer’s Institute/ Mayo patent licensing dispute over transgenic mice (Patent Docs)   Products (Tavanic) Levofloxacin – UK: EWCA upholds decision that Daiichi’s Levofloxacin patent and SPC both invalid: Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd… [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 7:03 am by Joy Waltemath
SmithKline Beecham Corporation, the Supreme Court explained that the definition of “sale” in 29 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 2:15 pm
The court, however, remanded the case "for the limited purpose of determining the correct inventorship" because an action under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 2:00 am by John Day
Smithkline Beecham Corp., [855 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. [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]
1 Aug 2011, 8:30 pm
The scope of reexamination proceedings is limited to "substantial new question[s] of patentability," 35 U.S.C. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 5:19 am
  Pharmaceutical companies then, who must warn ultimate purchasers of dangers inherent in patent drugs sold over the counter, in selling prescription drugs are required to warn only the prescribing physician, who acts as a “learned intermediary” between manufacturer and consumer.Because patients can obtain prescription drugs only through their prescribing physician or another authorized intermediary and because the “learned intermediary” is best suited to weigh the… [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 11:02 am by Kiera Flynn
SmithKline Beecham Corp.Docket: 11-204Issue(s): (1) Whether deference is owed to the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption and related regulations; and (2) whether the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (9th Cir.)Petition for certiorariAmicus brief of U.S. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 8:54 am by Dennis Crouch
” Notably, since Hudgens, the Supreme Court reinforced the limits of the Auer doctrine. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 1:24 pm by Bexis
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 2010), and Baumgardner v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 10:58 am by Beck, et al.
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179, 194-95 (E.D. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 1:38 pm
See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2007, 7:27 am
§355(o)(4)(I).The first thing that positively jumps out from subsection (4)(I) - compared to the true anti-ption poison pill plaintiffs' congressional allies attempted to insert earlier - is its facially limited scope. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Law Div. 2005).Heeding presumptions are something that exists in some states (Massachusetts, Missouri, Oklahoma), doesn’t in others (California, Connecticut, Alabama), and is limited in still others (New, Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas). [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 5:04 am
SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, 88 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2004), involving OTC nicotine gum used to stop smoking. [read post]