Search for: "Beecham v. State"
Results 181 - 200
of 277
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2010, 7:53 am
And it noted that federal courts have previously resolved conflicts between FDA labeling requirements and intellectual property law, including in SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 8:46 am
In Encino Motorcars, LLC v. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 11:02 am
Rodriguez v. [read post]
8 May 2008, 12:22 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2007 WL 4219157 (D. [read post]
23 Sep 2007, 2:28 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 04-01748-DFH-WTL, slip op. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 12:36 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 671 A.2d 1151, 1155 (Pa. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
In the consultation report of the neurologist states: “Neurontin is wholly appropriate in this patient. [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 8:27 am
Triantyfyllos Tafas v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 5:18 am
Rivera v. [read post]
17 Jul 2013, 8:50 am
., MDL 1871 (Morgan v. [read post]
10 May 2010, 5:06 pm
Moreover, it is also now clear that the state has a positive obligation to protect individuals from media intrusion into their private lives. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 2:30 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 9:24 am
The launch of generics pre-patent expiry is a substantial threat to innovators given the dramatic price spiral following the first launch (see commentary in SmithKline Beecham v Apotex). [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 2:41 pm
We disagree.In Hoffman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit applied Pennsylvania law and concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the manufacturer failed to adequately test its drug to discover potentially harmful side-effects. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 9:00 pm
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 12:46 pm
Here is a brief breakdown of this week's 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Christopher v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 1:37 pm
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 658 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. 2003); Duronio v. [read post]
5 May 2009, 5:57 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 1:04-cv-01748, U.S. [read post]
28 Nov 2006, 4:11 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325-26 (Fed. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 11:59 am
All this in a state – Illinois – where the highest court forbids FDCA-based common-law causes of action (see Martin v. [read post]
