Search for: "Smithkline Beecham Corporation"
Results 41 - 60
of 83
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Oct 2007, 12:25 pm
In a lawsuit against the USPTO, SmithKline Beecham Corporation (d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline) filed suit in the United Stated Federal District Court asking the court to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the PTO from implementing the Final Rules contending that the Final Rules are vague, arbitrary and capricious, and prevent GSK (not to mention everyone else) from fully prosecuting patent applications and obtaining patents on one or more of its inventions. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 11:14 am
Smithkline Beecham Corp. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 10:50 am
SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Slip Op.(3d Cir. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 12:50 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corporation that found that pharmaceutical workers are not entitled to overtime pay, this issue is again in the spotlight. [read post]
7 Nov 2007, 6:29 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corporation (doing business as GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”)), stepped up and sued the PTO, seeking both a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction to prevent the new rules from going into effect. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 1:38 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corporation that pharmaceutical sales representatives are not entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 2:51 am
., Serial No. 77136602 [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark HD NOW for "Broadcasting services, namely, transmission of video advertising media and metadata via proprietary media management systems" in view of the identical mark registered for "radio broadcasting services of digital signals"].July 20 - 11 AM: SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 1:47 pm
” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 12:57 pm
The opponents argued that GSK had failed to provide evidence that, on the filing date of the PCT, the right to claim priority had been transferred from the inventor-applicants of P1 and P2 (Mr O’Neill and Mr Bush) to Smithkline Beecham Corporation (SBC) (for more on assignment of priority rights, see IPKat: Assigned or not assigned). [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 10:05 pm
The District Court then distinguished the present case from SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 6:51 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., in which the Court will consider whether the “outside sales exemption” of the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives; Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy calls it “a case worth watching” for those interested in administrative law. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 6:12 am
The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes’ perpetuates popular misperceptions surrounding gene patents (Holman's Biotech IP Blog) Australian pharmaceutical patent term extension for patches and implants: N V Organon; LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG and Schwarz Pharma Limited (Patent Baristas) China: Obama Administration and compulsory licensing in China (China Hearsay) China: Forty-two of Simcere’s generic drugs enter China’s Essential Drug List… [read post]
14 May 2008, 5:20 am
Antitrust Class Action by Assignees of Direct Purchasers of Antidepressant Wellbutrin SR Satisfied Rule 23 Class Action Requirements Pennsylvania Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against SmithKline Beecham Corporation dba GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) alleging antitrust violations arising out of its manufacture and sale of the antidepressant drug Wellbutrin SR. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., the Court held that certain employees at a drug company did not qualify for overtime pay, in part because the Department of Labor had changed its mind on which employees should get overtime. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 7:53 am
And it noted that federal courts have previously resolved conflicts between FDA labeling requirements and intellectual property law, including in SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P. v. [read post]
27 Dec 2007, 7:09 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2007 WL 2726259 (S.D. [read post]
8 Jan 2008, 12:00 pm
Dudas, et al. consolidated with Smithkline Beecham Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 11:59 am
Here we go again. [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 7:09 am
SmithKline Beecham Corporation. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 1:21 pm
The crux of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in SmithKline Beecham is as follows: Because the products for which PSRs are responsible may be legally dispensed only with a prescription written by a licensed healthcare provider, the relevant purchaser is the healthcare provider, and thus PSRs make a “sale” when they obtain non-binding commitments from providers that they will write a prescription. 635 F.3d at 396. [read post]
