Search for: "HOFFMAN-LAROCHE LIMITED"
Results 21 - 40
of 41
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 May 2011, 5:28 pm
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., which departed from all existing case law at that moment.[22] In Molecular Diagnostics, the plaintiff, a direct purchaser of the subject patented product, brought suit under Section 1 of the Sherman Act charging that it had been forced to pay artificially inflated prices for the product as a result of defendants' enforcement of the patent, which plaintiffs allege was obtained by fraud on the PTO. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:16 pm
Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc., ___ F. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 12:07 pm
Supp. 20, 29 (D.D.C. 1997) (quoting Hoffman-Laroche Inc. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 11:45 am
Hoffman Laroche v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 4:28 am
Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. [read post]
27 May 2010, 3:40 pm
”Before get to the cases, however, we’ll also supply links to some relevant FDA documents.(1) the FDA’s 1996 Annual Adverse Experience Drug Report, in which the agency states that AERs “may not be used to calculate incidences or estimates of drug risk”;(2) the FDA’s 2003 Pharmaceutical Safety Assessments Analysis, which characterized causation assessments based upon AERs as “dubious,” “inefficient,” and “low quality”;(3) the… [read post]
15 May 2010, 2:22 pm
"'[T]he types of conduct which can form a basis for finding a case exceptional [include] . . . inequitable conduct before the P.T.O., [and] misconduct during litigation.'" Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 10:50 am
Hoffman-LaROche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 11261 (Fed. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 10:51 am
Hoffman LaRoche, Inc., 917 A.2d 767 (N.J. 2007) (which we reviewed here), the court held that in personal injury actions, the individual plaintiff's home state/place where the injury occurred should control: [H]aving considered the contacts relevant to the competing interests of the states in light of Rowe, this Court concludes that the competing interests of the states, the most important factor, weighs in favor of applying the law of each plaintiff's home jurisdiction. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 5:18 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 949 F.2d 806, 814 (5th Cir. 1992) (no presumption in unavoidably unsafe products because the effect of a presumption on an inherent risk would be to presume that nobody would ever use the product); Lineberger v. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 6:31 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, No. [read post]
6 Nov 2008, 3:08 am
Hoffman-LaRoche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1125 (Fed. [read post]
15 Oct 2008, 12:41 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 417 F.3d 1267, 1268-69, 1271 (D.C. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 11:40 pm
Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 417 F.3d 1267, 1268-69, 1271 (D.C. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 4:30 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
2 May 2008, 7:00 am
: (Patent Baristas), US: How to avoid a permanent injunction: the lessons of Amgen v Hoffman-LaRoche: (Patent Docs), US: Jarvik Heart’s PTE request based on PMA shell/module submission dates flatlines; ruling on initiation of PTE ‘review period’ mirrors FDA policy for ‘fast track’ products: (FDA Law Blog) Pharma & Biotech - Products Kytril (Granisetron) – Exclusivity ‘parking’… [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 2:16 am
Thus, the Federal Circuit held that Congress did not evince an intention to permit an application having additional disclosure to benefit from the § 121 safe harbor.Patent Docs also noted:Interestingly, the lawyer representing Pfizer before the Federal Circuit, Leora Ben-Ami of Kaye Scholer LLP, is also the lead trial attorney representing Hoffman-LaRoche against Amgen.IPBiz questions whether the Pfizer v. [read post]
3 Jan 2008, 10:34 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, in which the court ruled that Michigan resident Howe has no basis of claim in NJ. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 10:37 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 768 So.2d 57, 61 (La. [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 949 F.2d 806, 816 (5th Cir. 1992) (applying Mississippi law). [read post]
