Search for: "Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH"
Results 1 - 20
of 51
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Oct 2021, 12:41 am
On 8 October 2021, His Honour Judge Hacon (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) handed down his decision in an action brought by Royalty Pharma Collection Trust (“Royalty Pharma”) for approximately €23 million in royalty payments from Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH (“Boehringer”) (Royalty Pharma Collection Trust v Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH [2021] EWHC 2692 (Pat)). [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 12:41 am
On 8 October 2021, His Honour Judge Hacon (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) handed down his decision in an action brought by Royalty Pharma Collection Trust (“Royalty Pharma”) for approximately €23 million in royalty payments from Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH (“Boehringer”) (Royalty Pharma Collection Trust v Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH [2021] EWHC 2692 (Pat)). [read post]
5 Apr 2020, 9:57 pm
Plaintiffs-Appellants Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.; and Boehringer Ingelheim... [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 9:15 am
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, IPR2016-01563, Paper 16 (Feb. 3, 2017), that a relied-upon Glucophage label had no source identifying information or indicia of when it became publicly available and the declaration attesting to its publication was not based on personal knowledge, but was merely conclusory. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 10:00 pm
More from our authors: Mediation: Creating Value in International Intellectual Property Disputes by Théophile Margellos, Sophia Bonne, Gordon Humphreys, Sven Stürmann € The post Ireland: Re Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 1:16 am
The Court concluded that their actions therefore would not amount to repackaging as set out in Boehringer Ingelheim. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 1:16 am
The Court concluded that their actions therefore would not amount to repackaging as set out in Boehringer Ingelheim. [read post]
2 Jun 2018, 5:55 am
Adrian ChewThe Court of Appeal dismissed Boehringer Ingelheim’s application for permission to appeal the first instance Patents Court decision that EP (UK) 1,379,220 lacked inventive step. [read post]
4 May 2017, 1:00 am
Relevant Judicial Practice Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG v. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 1:31 am
€ 160 The post United Kingdom: Teva UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG, Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Civil Division, A3 2016 0271, 16 December 2016 appeared first on Kluwer Patent Blog. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 2:58 pm
Permission to appeal in patent cases - farewell to the Pozzoli approachGuest Kat Eibhlin Vardy recaps the case Teva UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG, [2016] EWCA Civ 1296. [read post]
21 Dec 2016, 12:48 am
These are the issues considered by the Court of Appeal in last week's decision concerning an application for permission to appeal in Teva UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG [2016] EWCA Civ 1296. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 2:00 pm
Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH, 237F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. [read post]
8 May 2016, 9:59 pm
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 11:35 am
[T]he drug's two manufacturers - Eli Lilly and Co. of Indianapolis and German partner Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH - have announced only that a three-year study they conducted showed the drug delayed the time until patients died of cardiovascular disease or suffered a heart attack or stroke. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 9:23 am
., and Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH all have similar medications currently in development. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 3:10 am
CJEU rules in telmisartan SPC disputeAfter his own earlier post on the CJEU’s decision in Case C‑577/13, Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 11:09 am
Today's the day that many pharmaceutical patent term extension-watchers have been waiting for with feelings of optimism or anxiety: the day on which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its ruling in Case C‑577/13, Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. [read post]
21 Mar 2014, 7:59 am
Bloomberg News reported Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH failed to reveal “a data analysis to U.S. regulators that” suggested the blood-thinner Pradaxa “may have caused more fatal bleeding after it was cleared for sale than the drug did in a study used to win approval,” citing unsealed court filings. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 8:56 am
Unsealed Court Documents Show Pradaxa Information Withheld from FDA Unsealed court documents in a Pradaxa injury case show that the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH did not disclose a data analysis to US regulators, which indicated that their blood thinner, which was touted as safer than their leading competitor warfarin, may have caused more fatal bleeding after it […] [read post]
