Search for: "Zimmer Holdings"
Results 21 - 40
of 250
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Mar 2018, 3:00 am
Zimmer, Inc., No. 16-3957 (U.S. [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 8:51 am
Zimmer (on the briefs and merits) Date of CAVC Decision: November 1, 2016 Link to Memorandum Decision on CAVC Website. [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 9:07 am
(now a part of Johnson & Johnson), and Zimmer Holdings, which is another major company and has been sued many times for artificial knee implants such as the defective Zimmer NexGen Knee. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 3:17 pm
When that pain comes from another’s negligence, it is important to hold them liable for injuries. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 4:57 am
The healthcare and life sciences sectors have grown at a rapid pace during recent years. [read post]
12 Oct 2016, 3:16 pm
Zimmer Holdings Inc. [read post]
23 Sep 2016, 7:12 am
Zimmer, Inc., 136 S. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 7:47 pm
Zimmer, Inc. [read post]
10 Sep 2016, 9:47 pm
Zimmer, Inc. and... [read post]
23 Aug 2016, 8:57 am
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al. [read post]
5 Jul 2016, 10:15 am
Holding of S.Ct. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 2:31 pm
Zimmer, Inc. [read post]
17 Jun 2016, 11:56 am
Zimmer, Inc., et al, in which Indiana-based Zimmer, Inc. was sued. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 5:04 am
Zimmer, Inc. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 9:20 am
The Supreme Court found that the standard of the CAFC was too rigid and that trial judges should have more leeway.From WSJ.comIn one, medical-device maker Stryker Corp. convinced a jury that subsidiaries of rival Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc. willfully infringed its patents on hand-held devices used to clean wounds. [read post]
12 Jun 2016, 10:00 pm
Zimmer and Halo Electronics, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:40 am
Zimmer, Inc., 14-1520 (enhanced damages) (linked with Halo) Argued: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. [read post]
18 May 2016, 8:19 am
Zimmer, Inc., 14-1520 (enhanced damages) (linked with Halo) Argued: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2016, 12:30 pm
Supp.2d at 679 (emphasis added).Lofton, with its repeated emphasis on comment k’s “prescription” language, is hardly a basis for the almost unique holding that, in a jurisdiction that has adopted comment k (not all have, as we discuss in the “Some of the Way” post) in prescription drug cases, comment k does not apply in the same way to medical devices that likewise require a doctor’s prescription before use. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 5:55 pm
Zimmer, 2016 VT 33By Thomas M. [read post]
