Search for: "In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P."
Results 21 - 38
of 38
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Aug. 2, 1999); In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, 133 F. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:16 am
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 10:37 am
Purdue Pharma, L.P., 821 N.E.2d 141, 146 (Ohio 2004); Vaccariello v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
App. 1996); In re GlenFed, Inc. [read post]
5 Feb 2009, 12:19 pm
Purdue Pharma Co., 297 F. [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 10:46 am
Today we're going to speculate a bit about what might happen if we win. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 5:00 am
A reader recently recommended that we take a look at Rounds v. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 4:30 am
A couple of cases we've posted about recently started us thinking - a dangerous turn of events, we know. [read post]
29 May 2014, 5:00 am
” Today we’re examining another Louisiana legal peculiarity. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 10:16 am
Purdue Pharma Co., 297 F. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 10:36 pm
Astellas Pharma, US., Inc., 2007 WL 2137782, at *3-4 (E.D. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Purdue Pharma, L.P., 295 F. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
., 712 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2013) – all of which also travel under the heading, In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 11:07 pm
See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 2:15 pm
" "In an attempt to prove its claims, AMC submitted re-constructed evidence, presented contradictory testimony, and engaged in evasive litigation tactics. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 1:40 am
Natural Res. [read post]
25 May 2011, 11:46 pm
Therasense, now Abbott, got into a patent battle involving 5,820,551 and similar patents claiming "disposable blood glucose test strips for diabetes management. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
This time, we don’t care much about the peculiar facts, but rather we’re directing ourselves to the court’s odd reasoning that somehow there’s a conflict between the learned intermediary rule (adopted at some level now in everyAmerican jurisdiction – see our “headcount” post here − and the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (“UCATA”). [read post]
