Search for: "Lilly v. State"
Results 321 - 340
of 913
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2015, 9:36 am
… and then Darren takes the floor for a more in-depth analysis.* Canary Wharf: great place name, not much hope for a trade mark ...Jeremy writes upCanary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2015] EWHC 1588 (Ch), a Chancery Division, England and Wales, decision with a history, and a curious trade mark tale too.* A novel becomes a saga - Actavis v Lilly set to go on and onThe IPKat blogged last year about the… [read post]
28 Jun 2015, 5:34 am
According to this approach, Smith & Nephew’s product (which contains 0.77% binding agent) would fall within the scope of the claim.Smith & Nephew, on the other hand, argued that the limits of the claimed range were precisely as they were stated (i.e. a concentration of 0.999% would not fall within the scope of the claim). [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:30 am
This Kat blogged last year about the masterful and erudite judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in the case of Actavis v Lilly (judgment on BAILII here), concerning pemetrexed. [read post]
27 May 2015, 4:10 am
In Rector, Wardens, and Vestrymen of Christ Church Cathedral of Indianapolis v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
As of the time of trial, the state of the art did not include a genetic marker for SJS/TEN. [read post]
22 May 2015, 7:18 am
Id. at **6-7 (quoting Lilly v. [read post]
14 May 2015, 4:00 am
In Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 9:41 am
The first claim survives, the second does not.The case is Smith v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
Eli Lilly & Co., 503 F. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 9:00 pm
At the Supreme Court, the Justices decided Burwell v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 7:05 am
Lilly v. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 11:55 pm
As in Hammon v. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 11:55 pm
As in Hammon v. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 6:35 am
The Pennsylvania case is Kristufek v. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 1:13 pm
The Pennsylvania case is Kristufek v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 5:41 pm
The Pennsylvania case is Wisniewski v. [read post]
24 Jan 2015, 8:19 pm
The answer is not clear-cut but as a general rule the post-filing data can only be ‘confirmatory’ of disclosure in the specification.As an aside, it is worth mentioning Human Genome Sciences v Eli Lilly where the main issue was how much data is required in the specification to support therapeutic use of an antibody to a new protein (see Katpost here).Why is it important to claim broadly in biotech? [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 12:16 pm
The Pennsylvania case is Wisniewski v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 12:17 pm
“The state of mind of the accused infringer is notrelevant to this objective inquiry. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 3:31 pm
Advisers registered in other states should consult with legal counsel about those states’ custody requirements. [read post]
