Search for: "Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc."
Results 21 - 40
of 41
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2008, 7:23 am
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355-56 (Fed. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 1:39 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314F.3d 1313, 1354 (Fed. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 5:46 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 9:14 am
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 457 F.3d 1293, 1313 (Fed. [read post]
9 Jun 2018, 7:01 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313,1354 (Fed. [read post]
28 Oct 2008, 5:52 am
On this basis there was no infringement.* The prior art cited by ACS did not emcompass the invention described in Ancon's patent, so the challenge to its validity failed.The IPKat notes the judge's reliance on, among other decisions, that of the House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen Inc. v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd, in which Lord Hoffmann rewrote, clarified or invented the British law on claim construction, depending on how you read the law… [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 9:50 am
That is what today's decision addresses.Appeal to the Supreme CourtThe Court of Appeal has refused leave for Smith & Nephew to appeal to the Supreme Court, because it considered that there is no significant point of general public importance at stake, since it has done no more than apply the established principles of claim construction from Kirin Amgen (Kirin Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46, [2005]… [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 4:11 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1326 (Fed. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:17 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1331-33 (Fed. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 2:15 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 12:37 am
As this court stated in Amgen Inc. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 5:26 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. [read post]
2 May 2011, 3:14 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1339 (Fed. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 4:52 am
" "The second is that it is necessary to distinguish between claims that are difficult to construe or that have a "fuzzy boundary" (in the words of Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46, [2005] RPC 9 at [126]) on the one hand from claims that are truly ambiguous on the other. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 3:00 am
Distinct issues of construction arose in respect of claims 1 and 3 of the patent:Claim 1:A wound dressing comprising a blend of discrete modified cellulose gel forming fibres with at least one other type of discrete gel forming fibres.Claim 3:A wound dressing as claimed in any preceding claim wherein the dressing comprises a wound contacting surface consisting of a blend of discrete modified cellulose fibres with at least one other type of discrete gel forming fibres.Setting out the law, the Judge… [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 10:26 am
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
Sighted this morning, breaking the surface just off the Strand, the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in MedImmune v Novartis [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) certainly fits the legend.In characteristic style, the judgment is as comprehensive as one would wish. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 1:25 am
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 7:30 am
Amgen Inc. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2011, 3:32 pm
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1326 (Fed. [read post]
