Search for: "PFIZER V APOTEX"
Results 21 - 40
of 211
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2017, 9:00 pm
Pfizer, Inc. v. [read post]
22 May 2007, 7:10 pm
Don Zuhn covers the CAFC's denial of en banc review in Pfizer v. [read post]
22 May 2007, 12:22 pm
Pfizer, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 9:03 am
Pfizer, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 10:23 am
Pfizer v. [read post]
22 May 2007, 9:52 pm
By Donald Zuhn -- On Monday, the Federal Circuit denied a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by Plaintiff-Appellee Pfizer, Inc. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 3:04 pm
Defendants Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Apotex Inc. last week asked the U.S. [read post]
10 Mar 2013, 9:59 pm
Searle LLC et al. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 10:07 pm
Unigene Labs. and Upsher-Smith Labs v. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 12:30 am
Apotex (not participating in the decision to grant cert, vacate, and remand for reconsideration in light of Levine), a case involving Pfizer as a party. [read post]
22 May 2007, 11:30 am
Apotex, Inc. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 9:52 pm
Apotex holding that Pfizer's patent on Norvasc is invalid? [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 12:52 am
O Canada, thank you for getting rid of thePromise Doctrine The Court's Analysis The utility requirement is a necessary pre-condition to patentability - if the invention that a patent purports to protect is not useful, it cannot be an invention (Apotex v Wellcome (2002 SCC 77), Teva v Pfizer). [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 9:39 am
O Canada, thank you for getting rid of thePromise Doctrine The Court's Analysis The utility requirement is a necessary pre-condition to patentability - if the invention that a patent purports to protect is not useful, it cannot be an invention (Apotex v Wellcome (2002 SCC 77), Teva v Pfizer). [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:32 pm
Further, Pfizer's claims as to what consists of evergreening should've taken into account their own experience in Pfizer v Apotex, when a US Fed Cir Court ruled that their claimed advantage of increased solubility and stability were not sufficient 'since it found the claimed advantage (better solubility and stability) to be fairly ordinary and the result of mere routine experimentation.' [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 9:27 am
In Pfizer Inc. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 9:34 pm
Pfizer. [read post]
3 Dec 2008, 10:20 pm
First, Pfizer's contentions:There's no disagreement among appellate courts (a well-established basis for Supreme Court review) on preemption in SSRI litigation.No matter what the outcome in Wyeth v. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 4:00 am
Pfizer Canada ULC, 2020 FC 1, at para. 48. [12] See Free World Trust, supra, at paragraph 13; Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd, 2002 SCC 77 at paragraph 37, [2002] 4 SCR 153; AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2017 SCC 36 at paragraph 39, [2017] 1 SCR 943 [13] See Free World Trust, supra, at paragraphs 33–43; applied in Seedlings Life Science Ventures, LLC v. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 9:05 am
The application (Pfizer v. [read post]
