Search for: "Grant v. Bristol-Myers Squibb" Results 1 - 20 of 157
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Apr 2024, 10:08 am by admin
Dwyer, a young, earnest immunologist who had done some contract work on an unrelated matter for Bristol-Myers Squibb, a defendant in the litigation. [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 10:00 pm by Kurt R. Karst
The Plaintiffs in the remaining five lawsuits (Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, PhRMA and other trade associations, Janssen pharmaceutical, and Boehringer Ingelheim) might similarly amend their complaints to note that their drugs were in fact selected, and that they were compelled to sign contracts with the CMS. [read post]
9 Nov 2022, 1:00 pm by Holly Brezee
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699 (2d Cir. 2019). [9] See, e.g. [read post]
18 Aug 2022, 12:26 pm by Josh Blackman
Ct. 599, 600 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in grant of stay) (noting that the percolation "process that permits the airing of competing views . . . aids this Court's own decisionmaking process"); Box v. [read post]
20 May 2022, 10:26 am by Holly Brezee
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699 (2d Cir. 2019). [9] See, e.g. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 11:51 pm by Radhi Shah (USC Gould School of Law)
Bristol-Myers Squibb   The following case illustrates licence sought for Sprycel® which is used in cancer treatment On March 4, 2013 the Controller rejected BDR Pharmaceuticals’ (BDR) application for a compulsory license for the cancer drug Sprycel®. [read post]
The Patentees filed two PTE applications, each of which was based on different goods on the ARTG: Brand Name OPDIVO® KEYTRUDA® Active ingredient nivolumab pembrolizumab Australian sponsor Bristol-Myers Squibb Australia Pty Ltd Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd Relationship between sponsor and patentees Related to one of the patentees Not related to either patentee Date goods containing the drug were first included on ARTG 11 January 2016 16 April 2015… [read post]
25 May 2021, 3:00 am by Avery Welker
Generally, most of our analysis came from the multitude of court cases involving personal jurisdiction (e.g., International Shoe, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daimler A.G., etc.). [read post]
17 May 2021, 1:12 pm by Dennis Crouch
“And Trimble is headquartered in California, connecting California to Trimble’s claims, which is a consideration the Court in Ford found relevant in distinguishing its earlier decision in Bristol-Myers. [read post]
For example, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that a tax return preparation firm made reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its customers’ list because it: (i) did not publish the list; (ii) established companywide policies to protect the information from disclosure to third parties; (iii) counseled its employees regarding the policies; (iv) limited access to its customer database to certain employees and the information was password protected; and (v) employees permitted… [read post]