Search for: "Generic Pharmaceutical Services, Inc." Results 381 - 400 of 1,028
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2014, 3:29 pm
‘It’s Idenix Pharmaceutical, Inc v Gilead Sciences, Inc & Others [2014] EWHC 3916 (Pat) (01 December 2014)’, Darren might answer. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 8:00 am by Victoria Hordern
In the CJEU decision of May 2014 (known as the Google ‘right to be forgotten’ decision) the court found that the advertising sales generated by Google Spain (the local subsidiary of the US company Google Inc.), were sufficiently linked to the Google search activities that the individual affected complained about. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 6:50 am
Gilead Sciences, Inc., which is a big reason we cited the horrendous Murthy opinion from a couple years ago, in a case involving clinical trials that left us Dazed and Confused. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 10:15 am
Besides construction the case deals with some practice points on the level of details that is required in statements of case on infringement and general pleading issues. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 6:30 am by Rebecca Shafer, J.D.
  It was a fast moving event that generated a number of questions. [read post]
2 Nov 2014, 11:14 am by Richard Booth
Securities fraud is back in the Supreme Court in Omnicare, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 5:27 am
 * Obviousness, common general knowledge and expectations of success: Leo gets a mauling Jeremy hosts this post by Suleman Ali (Holly IP) on Teva UK Limited & Teva Pharmaceuticals Limited v Leo Pharma A/S & Leo Laboratories Limited [2014] EWHC 3096 (Pat), a decision by Mr Justice Birss in the Patents Court, England and Wales which addresses two patent law cornerstones: obviousness and common general knowledge. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 7:55 am by Barry Barnett
Fifth Circuit decision Citing the Supreme Court's ruling on loss causation in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
Bell, the Third Circuit rejected a defendant’s attempt to “packag[e] a commercial message with token political commentary” to avoid criminal liability.[12] The defendant’s website advocated several legal theories on why Americans are not obligated to pay income taxes,[13] while offering fraudulent and illegal tax advice and services. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 10:30 am by Maureen Johnston
Association of Maryland Pilots 13-1268Issue: Whether, when applying the Chandris, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 4:55 am
This one is Chanel Inc. v Chanel’s Salon and Chanel Jones, 2:14-cv-00304, and sees fashion and cosmetics company Chanel as plaintiff. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 4:01 pm
 Finally, SOLO IP reports that, for every 100 jobs in the legal services sector, 67 jobs are created outside the legal service sector -- so whose jobs are we creating? [read post]