Search for: "Stryker Corporation "
Results 41 - 60
of 202
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2015, 6:08 am
., No. 14-1513 (enhanced damages) (linked to Stryker) Stryker Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 9:34 pm
” The corporate name of the manufacturer is Howmedica Osteonics Corp. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 7:35 am
Indianapolis; IN - Patent lawyers for Hill-Rom Services, Inc. of Batesville, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Stryker Corporation of Kalamazoo, Michigan infringed twelve patents owned by Hill-Rom all of which have been issued by the US Patent Office. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 7:35 am
Indianapolis; IN - Patent lawyers for Hill-Rom Services, Inc. of Batesville, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Stryker Corporation of Kalamazoo, Michigan infringed twelve patents owned by Hill-Rom all of which have been issued by the US Patent Office. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 3:35 am
Stryker Corporation filed an intent-to-use application to register the mark MICROFX, for "surgical instruments." [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 12:33 pm
We are passionate about holding corporations accountable when they place their profits ahead of the safety of others. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 9:43 am
., No. 14-1513 (enhanced damages) (linked to Stryker) Stryker Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 10:50 am
I filed the case in Bergen County, New Jersey where Stryker has its corporate headquarters. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 3:30 am
Pulse Electronics, Inc, (14-1513) and Stryker Corporation v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 8:14 am
Last week, the Sixth Circuit ruled largely in favor of Stryker Corporation in its effort to secure insurance coverage from XL Insurance America. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 8:14 am
Last week, the Sixth Circuit ruled largely in favor of Stryker Corporation in its effort to secure insurance coverage from XL Insurance America. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 10:18 am
Patent lawyers for Hill-Rom Services, Inc of Batesville, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Stryker Corporation doing business as Stryker Medical and Stryker Sales Corporation of Kalamazoo, Michigan infringed patent numbers 5,771,511, Communication network for a hospital bed, 7,237,287, Patient care bed with network, and seven other hospital bed communication patents which has been issued by the US Patent Office. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 2:58 pm
For this reason the majority of large corporations favor the MDL process. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 7:02 am
Howmedica Osteonics Corporation, which uses the trade name Stryker Orthopaedics, agreed on November 3, 2014 to pay more than $1 billion in damages to a class of injured patients… Read more → The post Did you have hip implant surgery and needed a revision? [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 8:37 am
He says our justice system is out of control and pledges to increase the legal protection that U.S. corporations like Stryker, DePuy and Johnson and Johnson already enjoy. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 2:17 pm
., et al. (14-1513); and Stryker Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 1:52 pm
LaRue of the Southern District of Indiana has denied Stryker Corporation's Motion for Leave to Amend Its Counterclaims, which sought permission to add three more patent infringement counterclaims referencing three additional patents. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 11:03 am
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction; preemption; Class III medical device; dismissal with prejudice In a diversity action where plaintiff alleges injury by a hip replacement, a Class III medical device under the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, under Illinois common law for negligence and strict liability for a defective product, the trial court erred when it held that [...] [read post]
30 Nov 2013, 2:14 am
Stryker’s “Rejuvenate Modular Hip System” and the “Stryker ABG II Modular Neck” were both voluntarily recalled by in July 2012 due to the health risks to implant patients. [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]
