Search for: "Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P."
Results 1 - 20
of 42
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jan 2024, 9:05 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P. [read post]
15 Nov 2023, 1:13 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P. [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 7:44 am
Purdue Pharma L.P. [read post]
12 Aug 2022, 6:48 pm
Amgen, 580 F.3d at 1365–67; Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2022, 9:22 am
With AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Purdue Pharma L.P., and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc being sued previously. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 8:00 am
(Citing Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 6:00 am
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., C.A. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 5:51 am
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. [read post]
14 Sep 2018, 5:15 am
Vermont is the latest state to sue Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma L.P. over its opioid drug, OxyContin, joining many others in the fight against the large manufacturer for sparking a nationwide epidemic. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 6:00 am
Colorado’s attorney general is suing Purdue Pharma, the creator and manufacturer of OxyContin. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 11:39 pm
”The defendants in the AG’s complaint, filed today in Suffolk Superior Court, are Connecticut-based companies Purdue Pharma Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P., current and former Purdue CEOs Craig Landau, John Stewart and Mark Timney and current and former members of Purdue Pharma Inc. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 9:22 am
Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 18-383-RGA (D.Del. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:09 am
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 5:44 pm
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:16 am
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 8:39 am
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 10:43 am
Plaintiffs-appellantsPurdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. [read post]
31 Jan 2016, 7:57 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
App. 1994), a non-medical learned intermediary decision mentioned in Watts, since Davis held that “[the learned intermediary], a leading manufacturer of aircraft, understood the possible consequences” of the hazard at issue. [read post]
