Search for: "US v. Julie Nelson" Results 201 - 220 of 230
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2009, 6:45 am
Tafas v Doll (Patent Docs) US: For stem cells, it seems that conception is enough: University of Pittsburgh v Hedrick (Patent Docs) (Patents4Life) US: General Accountability Office report on Bayh-Dole: Leverage to promote commercialisation of federally-funded inventions (PatentBIOtech) US: AlphaVax seeks review of BPAI decision awarding priority of invention to Novartis in interference between patents related to Alphavirus (Patent Docs) US: Teva,… [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 7:14 am
OHIM decision in Laboratorios Andrómaco, S.A. v OTC Pharma International B V (Class 46) India: Valgancyclovir hearings and the need for more transparency: Roche v Cipla (Spicy IP) Japan approves first follow-on biologic (Patent Docs) UK: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice note on ‘Paediatric extensions: the requirement of a compliance statement’ on UK IPO decision in Merck and Co, Inc (The SPC Blog) US: Sen… [read post]
13 Jun 2009, 2:42 pm
  Secondly, the brief argues that Smelt and Hammer, who married in California in July, lack standing to attack DOMA. [read post]
14 Sep 2008, 8:10 pm
Region VII Area Agcy    Eastern District of Michigan at Bay CityKAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. [read post]
11 Sep 2008, 2:07 am
On July 30, 2008, Keith Nelson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States, wrote a letter to the U.S. [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 7:04 am
Please join the discussion by adding your comments on any of these stories, and please do let us know if you think we’ve missed something important, or if there is a source you think should be monitored. [read post]
22 Mar 2008, 2:00 am
You might wait 14 more years: (GenericsWeb),US: Hypocrisy at FTCR? [read post]
13 Jan 2008, 4:47 pm
Sec US Dept Ed    Eastern District of Michigan at DetroitR. [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 2:53 pm
New Cinular Wireless Services), and the Washington Supreme Court's July 12 holding that Cingular's class-action ban was unenforceable against a consumer class action under Washington state law (Scott v. [read post]