Search for: "Ely Lilly"
Results 401 - 420
of 2,173
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2017, 6:55 am
Defendant Eli Lilly is a multinational pharmaceutical company based in Indianapolis. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 8:33 am
In this guest post, she shares her thoughts and updates us on the related developments.Pemetrexed pops up in MilanGuest Kat Eibhlin gives takes us through the recent decision handed down by the Court of Milan which forms part of the long running multi-jurisdictional battle concerning Eli Lilly's patent protecting its pemetrexed (Alimta) product.Medical data in a twist - Technomed v BluecrestGuest Kat Rosie demystifies database rights with the recent decision of Technomed v… [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 5:33 pm
The second panelist, Jonathon Anderson, patent counsel with Eli Lilly, then addressed the session on some specific IP considerations for digital health businesses, considered particularly from the perspective of an established pharmaceutical/medical devices company. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 6:09 pm
The panel members were Mattias Zigann, the presiding judge of the Munich Regional Court, Philip Kerr of Allens Linklaters and Larry Welch, the Senior Director, and Assistant General Patent Counsel at Eli Lilly and Company.Mr Ludwig explained that the question of what relief was appropriate had been highlighted by the very recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in AMGEN INC & ors v. [read post]
16 Oct 2017, 2:57 am
” In its recent judgment of 2 October 2017 (Eli Lilly v. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 7:30 am
Although sales of Alimta have dropped in recent months, the cancer treatment remains an important part of Eli Lilly’s portfolio. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 7:30 am
On Thursday, October 5th, a final written decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld a series of 22 claims from a patent owned by Indianapolis, IN-based drugmaker Eli Lilly & Company (NYSE:LLY). [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 2:34 pm
Eli Lilly, the court reaffirmed that written description is determined based on the state of the art as of a patent’s priority date and that evidence which illuminates the state of the art only subsequent to the priority date is not relevant to written description. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 2:34 pm
Eli Lilly, the court reaffirmed that written description is determined based on the state of the art as of a patent’s priority date and that evidence which illuminates the state of the art only subsequent to the priority date is not relevant to written description. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 6:00 am
Nathan Yaffe, Transnational Arbitral Res JudicataSilke Noa Kumpf, Equity-Based Discretion and the Anatomy of Damages Assessment in Investment Treaty LawBoris Kasolowsky, Eric Leikin, Eli Lilly v. [read post]
1 Oct 2017, 9:43 pm
Eli Lilly (2010) (en banc). [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 9:01 pm
McKinney, who received a bachelor’s degree in agricultural economics in 1981, previously was director of global corporate affairs for Elanco Animal Health, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 3:29 am
Further, there was no indirect infringement - the SmPC of the generic product indicated that reconstitution and dilution would happen in a glucose solution, rather than a saline solution as specified in the claims of EP '508.Consideration of UK decision Eli Lilly drew the recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in Eli Lilly v Actavis to the Court of Milan's attention. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 7:22 pm
Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 7:22 pm
Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. [read post]
23 Sep 2017, 12:39 pm
Cir. 2015); Eli Lilly, 845 F.3d at 1370. [read post]
16 Sep 2017, 9:46 am
Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1575 (Fed. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 7:28 am
STAT reports on the “irony” in a ruling by a federal appeals court that Eli Lilly shouldn’t have stopped disability benefits for a former human resources executive with fibromyalgia when the company was marketing Cymbalta for the same condition. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 4:00 am
The doctrine of collateral estoppel has two requirements: (1) “the identical issue necessarily must have been decided in the prior action and be decisive of the present action,” and (2) “the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455 [1985]; see Ackman v Haberer, 111 AD3d 1378, 1379 [2013]). [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 1:30 am
Eli Lilly has sold the combination drug, called Alimta, since 2004. [read post]
