Search for: "GENENTECH, INC."
Results 261 - 280
of 469
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2011, 1:37 pm
Genentech Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), which lowered the standard for bringing declaratory judgment actions. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 9:14 pm
Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007). [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 4:56 am
Sun Pharma Global FZE (Patent Docs) Valcyte (Valganciclovir) – US: patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Genentech, Inc. et al. v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 4:39 am
Genentech Inc. [read post]
21 May 2011, 10:45 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
20 May 2011, 3:06 pm
Genentech, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected our prior, more stringent standard for declaratory judgment standing insofar as it required a "reasonable apprehension of imminent suit. [read post]
19 May 2011, 9:34 pm
Genentech, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected our prior, more stringent standard for declaratory judgment stand- ing insofar as it required a “reasonable apprehension of imminent suit. [read post]
11 May 2011, 4:54 am
Allergan, Inc. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 4:13 pm
Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007). [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 9:03 am
Supreme Court’s January 2007 decision in Medimmune, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2011, 8:43 pm
Genentech, Inc. et al. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 2:26 pm
Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 128-29 (2007). [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 2:23 pm
Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 128-29 (2007). [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:17 pm
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 1:30 pm
The drug is jointly developed by Genentech Inc., a member of the Roche group, under an agreement with Novartis Pharma AG. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 9:55 am
" Genentech, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 3:52 pm
(Genentech, defendant) and BiogenIDEC, Inc. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 8:46 am
Human Genome Sciences Inc. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 2:39 pm
Tool Works Inc. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 6:33 pm
Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (holding that declaratory judgment jurisdiction may exist even if the patent holder could not have sued for infringement and that the apprehension that patentee will sue for infringement is not a necessary element for Article III jurisdiction); Bilski v. [read post]
