Search for: "Stryker Corp." Results 41 - 60 of 361
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Apr 2012, 3:18 pm
British regulators are positive that a ban of metal-on-metal hip replacements from Johnson & Johnson and Stryker Corp. is necessary because of "unacceptably high" rates of follow-up operations. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 3:18 pm
British regulators are positive that a ban of metal-on-metal hip replacements from Johnson & Johnson and Stryker Corp. is necessary because of "unacceptably high" rates of follow-up operations. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 1:42 pm
Stryker Corporation, et al., No. 09-3434, the issue was whether a product defect claim citing federal safety standard violations was also preempted by that product having federal approval. [read post]
13 Apr 2007, 1:46 am
Stryker Corp. (06-1260), April 12, 2007The CAFC reviewed the district court's finding of willful infringement of Acumed's patent on orthopedic devices for the treatment of fractures to the upper arm. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 4:58 am by Mike "No Man" Navarre
USAToday reports here that an I Corps spokesman at Joint Base Lewis-McChord commented that I Corps promised a thorough investigation of the charges against a group of soldiers from the 2d Stryker Brigade, 2d Infantry Battalion. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 9:34 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Stryker Corp., 432 F.3d 1356, 1361-62 (Fed. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 9:48 am by Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog
Stryker Corp., No. 09-1423 (June 9, 2010)TriMed sued Stryker on a patent directed to an implantable device used to set bone fractures. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 7:00 am by G. Hopkins Guy
Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corp. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 10:37 am by Joshua L. Firth
On Monday, November 3, 2014, a Kalamazoo, Michigan-based orthopedic device manufacturer, Stryker Orthopedics and Howmedica Osteonics Corp., agreed to pay at least $1.43 billion to settle lawsuits pending around the United States. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 4:53 pm
Stryker Corp. moved to dismiss the complaint filed by Lenore because the 2-year statute of limitations had run when the case was filed in Chicago in 2005. [read post]