Search for: "Schering Corp"
Results 221 - 240
of 251
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
Bayer Corp., 398 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 2005) (applying Illinois law); Thomas v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 10:34 am
Mylan followed Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 3:09 pm
In October 1999, Schering Corp., the new exclusive licensee under the patent, filed for a patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 11:00 am
: (Patent Docs), US: Supreme Court declines to hear final Nucleonics’ appeal in gene-silencing patent dispute with Benitec Australia: (IP Law360), (Therapeutics Daily), US: 505(b)(2) drug approvals rock - Interaction of patents and exclusivity of drugs approved by FDA under section 505(b)(2): (Patent Baristas), US: StemCells’ patents survive reexam – StemCells and Neuralstem differ on extent of changes: (Patent Docs), US: StemCells announces issuance of… [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
The first edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence [Manual] was published in 1994, a year after the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Daubert. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
In re Schering Plough Corp. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 3:15 am
We wouldn't base a motion solely on Actimmune, but with Pennsylvania Employees as the lead case, Actimmune is useful supporting precedent.Another candidate for best supporting actor in this area is In re Schering-Plough Corp. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 12:47 pm
Schering Corp. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 6:30 pm
., 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003), the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice both consider them presumptively anticompetitive, see In re Schering Plough Corp., No. 9297 (F.T.C. [read post]
16 Aug 2009, 9:51 pm
In arguing their motion, Microsoft unfortunately relied on Schering Corp v Pfizer (1999) where, although the Court had excluded five surveys from evidence under the hearsay rule, the Court did not discuss Rule 703 save to say, damagingly for Microsoft, that it was an acceptable basis to admit survey evidence. [read post]
29 Dec 2022, 10:14 am
ADA Background In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA or Act”).[1] The purpose of the Act is to provide protection and certain rights for Americans with disabilities. [read post]
17 Apr 2008, 10:39 am
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., ___ F. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 1:38 am
Title: Schering Corp. v. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 11:32 am
Good tidings and great cheer. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 9:00 am
: (Spicy IP),USD 20 billion going off-patent: (Patent Circle),Canadian Prices Review Board asserts jurisdiction over products sold in US, but imported into Canada under Special Access Program: (Gowlings),Canadian Court of Appeal affirms decision allowing patent-owner to be joined to proceedings: Cobalt v Pfizer and Pharmascience v Pfizer: (Gowlings),PharmaStem appeals stem cell patent: asks for greater deference to patent examiners: PharmaStem … [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 3:40 am
, Schering-Plough Corp – Following dispute over trade dress with Schering-Plough, Fruit of the Earth announces plan to change its package design: (IP Law360), US: Quanta and its impact on biotechnology: (Holman’s Biotech IP Blog), US: BIO files amicus brief asking CAFC to cabin in scope of KSR and hold that its obvious to try dicta does not abrogate the Deuel standard: In re Kubin: (Patently-O), US: StemCells gets patent on enriched central nervous… [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 6:00 pm
: (IP finance), United States: An open letter for the General Counsel of the PTO on your San Diego presentation next week: (Hal Wegner), United States: Cocoa genome: breaking intellectual property barriers: (Thomson Reuters Scientific), Vietnam: Patentability of second medical use claims in Vietnam is again questionable: (Trung Truc JSC) Pharma & Biotech - Products Allegra (Fexofenadine) - Canada: Motion for summary judgment of noninfringement dismissed in patent infringement… [read post]
4 Feb 2008, 8:23 am
Schering-Plough Corp., No. 06-06823, 2007 WL 1839789 (N.D. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 10:56 am
Oct. 7, 2009) (“[m]erely alleging that [defendant] marketed the drugs at issue for off-label purposes does not state a claim for fraud”); In re Schering-Plough Corp. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 12:39 pm
The outcome of the case was a mixed bag:Following the entry of judgment of non-infringement and no invalidity in a lawsuit brought against Bunzl Processor Distribution, LLC (“Bunzl”) and Bunzl USA, Inc. [read post]
