Search for: "Eli Lilly "
Results 361 - 380
of 2,147
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2018, 12:00 am
The SEC agreed with Eli Lilly’s reasoning, and concluded Eli Lilly could omit the proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(10). [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 8:41 am
Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 1:00 am
Recent cases such as Trunki and Actavis v Eli Lilly in the Supreme Court and the CJEU ruling in Specsavers have drawn into focus the relationship between the representation contained on the patent, trade mark and design registers and the scope of protection conferred by those registrations. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 6:48 am
Following Actavis vs Eli Lilly, is the UK becoming more author-centric? [read post]
3 Mar 2018, 2:35 am
Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Arnold): Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another v Yeda Research And Development Company Ltd [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat) (26 Oct 2017) On Wednesday, 28 Feb 2018 I gave a talk to the C5 Pharma and Patent Litigation Conference at the Radisson Blu Hotel in Amsterdam. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 2:35 pm
For instance, earlier this year Eli Lilly & Co. reached a settlement over federal product liability lawsuits pending for damage caused by its testosterone drug Axiron. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 2:35 pm
For instance, earlier this year Eli Lilly & Co. reached a settlement over federal product liability lawsuits pending for damage caused by its testosterone drug Axiron. [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 4:15 am
Eli Lilly and Co. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 4:15 am
Eli Lilly and Co. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 8:55 am
If last year’s Supreme Court case in Actavis v Eli Lilly is to be taken as a guide, the Court may take around three months to make its judgment available. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 7:31 am
Continued from Part IInfringement - no role for German doctrine of "deliberate selection" following Eli Lilly v Actavis, yet...On the basis of a normal interpretation, the shear mode fell within the scope of the claims. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 7:30 am
”Henry loved when he was in "shear mode"Claim "Interpretation" - it is all about what you say and disclaimWith the old "Construction" heading now replaced with "Interpretation", Mr Justice Carr stated he would be applying"principles concerning normal interpretation and equivalents set out by the Supreme Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48, [2018] and by the Patents Court in Mylan v Yeda [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat) at [134]… [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 2:33 am
EssaysWas the Supreme Court right in Actavis v Eli Lilly to introduce a doctrine of equivalents when determining infringement of patents in the UK? [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 4:16 am
In C-493/12 – Eli Lilly and Company the CJEU had stressed that the “infringement test” was not to be applied for determining whether a product is “protected by a basic patent in force”. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 10:05 pm
The CJEU articulated for the first time in Eli Lilly that in order to be protected by the basic patent, the claim must relate to the product implicitly, but necessarily and specifically (the "Lilly requirement"). [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 8:13 pm
"On Wednesday evening, Lawyers for Civil Justice--an organization representing the interests of corporate counsel (with companies like Microsoft, Shell, ExxonMobil, Eli Lilly, StateFarm, Ford, Merck, Pfizer, Glaxo SmithKline and FedEx sitting on the board) to avoid unreasonably burdensome procedures--asked the court for permission to file the following amicus brief that effectively supports Apple (this post continues below the document): 18-01-31 Lawyers for Civil Justice… [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 2:57 am
The UCL debate on the UK Supreme Court decision Actavis v Eli Lilly ("Equivalents: K = Na. [read post]
23 Jan 2018, 7:29 pm
Cir. 2015) (citing Eli Lilly & Co. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2018, 3:58 am
Readers interested in patent law will be familiar with last summer's decision of the UK Supreme Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 2:26 pm
The decision, in Eli Lilly and Co. v. [read post]
