Search for: "SANDOZ INTERNATIONAL GmbH"
Results 1 - 20
of 47
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Sep 2022, 9:39 am
However, the international search report confirmed the lack of novelty of the invention, even in that amended form. [read post]
5 Oct 2020, 2:00 am
Standard Verlags GmbH, the Judge started by recalling that the "close connection" criteria requires the same situation of fact and law. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 9:15 am
Sandoz, Inc., Sandoz International GMBH, Sandoz GMBH, holding that Sandoz failed to prove that the asserted claims were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), failure to meet the written description requirement, and obviousness for lack of motivation to combine... [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 9:15 am
Sandoz, Inc., Sandoz International GMBH, Sandoz GMBH, holding that Sandoz failed to prove that the asserted claims were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), failure to meet the written description requirement, and obviousness for lack of motivation to combine the prior art references. [read post]
15 Feb 2019, 12:47 am
The judgment was handed down in an invalidation action brought by Sandoz International GmbH. [read post]
9 Feb 2019, 3:45 am
Bart van WezenbeekRelevant prior art may prove not to be useful as a starting point for an attack on inventive step if the prior art teaching is negated by later studies before the effective date of the patent claims. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:09 am
Anticipation: Grunenthal GmbH v. [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 5:44 pm
Anticipation: Grunenthal GmbH v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:16 am
Lexmark International, Inc., No. 15-1189 (unreasonable restraints on downstream uses) BPCIA – Notice of Commercial Marketing: Sandoz Inc. v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am
Anticipation: Grunenthal GmbH v. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 8:39 am
Lexmark International, Inc., No. 15-1189 (unreasonable restraints on downstream uses) BPCIA – Notice of Commercial Marketing: Sandoz Inc. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 6:03 pm
Amgen Inc., et al., No. 16-332 (effectively extending exclusivity to 12 1/2 years; complement to the Sandoz petition) Anticipation: Grunenthal GmbH v. [read post]
19 May 2016, 8:56 pm
• Defendants: Sandoz Inc.; Sandoz International GmbH; Sandoz GmbH; Lek Pharmaceuticals, d.d. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 12:56 pm
" is the bold question posited by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), the Blackberry-founded research centre in Waterloo, Canada. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 3:34 am
Never Too Late 70 [week ending on Sunday 1 November] – Case T-309/13 Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou v OHIM, Gaba International Holding GmbH | Sixteen millions IPKats | Tomaydo-Tomahhdo LLC v George Vozray et al | Lookalike packaging | Parasite copying | 3D printing | Labouring the point? [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 2:40 pm
Never Too Late 70 [week ending on Sunday 1 November] – Case T-309/13 Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou v OHIM, Gaba International Holding GmbH | Sixteen millions IPKats | Tomaydo-Tomahhdo LLC v George Vozray et al | Lookalike packaging | Parasite copying | 3D printing | Labouring the point? [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 12:34 am
* When litigants must be responsible -- and what happens when they're not: Lyrica pregabalin injunction is continuedWarner-Lambert Co LLC v Sandoz GmbH, Sandoz Ltd and Lloyds Pharmcacy Ltd [2015] EWHC 3153 (Pat) is the latest in a series of decisions in the ongoing patent infringement dispute over pregabalin, a generic version of Lyrica. [read post]
11 Nov 2015, 3:22 pm
On Monday this Kat posted "When litigants must be responsible -- and what happens when they're not: Lyrica pregabalin injunction is continued" (here), this being a short note on the decision of Mr Justice Arnold in Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Sandoz GmbH, Sandoz Ltd and Lloyds Pharmcacy Ltd [2015] EWHC 3153 (Pat), in the Patents Court, England and Wales, to extend an interim injunction in an ongoing patent infringement dispute over pregabalin, a generic… [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 8:36 am
Sandoz, Inc., 135S. [read post]
15 Mar 2015, 8:48 pm
• Defendants: Sandoz Private Ltd.; Sandoz International GmbH Infringement of U.S. [read post]
