Search for: "G.D. Searle "
Results 1 - 20
of 82
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2022, 7:28 am
He left Searle to join the other founders of our firm. [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 2:32 pm
G.D. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 2:12 am
G.D. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 7:56 am
G.D. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 1:30 am
Bart van WezenbeekThe Court concluded that the compound darunavir was not protected by a patent within the sense of Art. 3 of the SPC directive because, following the CJEU decision in Teva v Gilead, it is necessary that the compound for which the SPC is granted can be specifically identified in the patent. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 2:59 am
Searle LLC & anr, Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Civil Division, [2018] EWCA Civ 49, 25 January 2018 appeared first on Kluwer Patent Blog. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 7:58 am
Thorsten Bausch…great forces are up against each other and a dispute arises. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 10:05 pm
Searle LLC (2) Janssen Sciences Ireland UC [2017] EWHC 987 (Pat). [read post]
23 Jan 2018, 7:29 pm
” G.D. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 1:25 pm
G.D. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 6:29 pm
It was a tough week for the talc litigation industry. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:42 am
Searle LLC (2) Janssen Sciences Ireland UC [2017] EWHC 987 (Pat). [read post]
6 May 2016, 12:30 pm
G.D. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 5:00 am
G.D. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 5:00 am
G.D. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 9:59 pm
By Kevin E. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
The first edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence [Manual] was published in 1994, a year after the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Daubert. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 11:59 am
By this definition, the University of Rochester was a "patent assertion entity" in its lawsuit against Searle over COX-2 inhibitors, and MIT, Harvard, and Whitehead were "patent assertion entities" in the lawsuit against Lilly concerning Nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kappaB) [US 6,410,516]. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
We’ve already discussed the peculiar decision in Watts v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
We’ve made no secret of our distaste for the so called “heeding presumption” – that juries may presume that any alternative “adequate” warning would have been heeded by the plaintiff (or, in prescription medical product cases, the prescriber). [read post]
