Search for: "WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY" Results 421 - 440 of 547
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Nov 2008, 11:07 pm
Levine, discuss the power of the FDA, federal pre-emption and what the upcoming ruling means for the future of Pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 3:07 pm by Legal Talk Network
Levine, discuss the power of the FDA, federal pre-emption and what the upcoming ruling means for the future of Pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 2:57 pm
Many suggested that the legal pendulum will swing away from eight years of policies broadly sympathetic to financial institutions, pharmaceutical companies and the oil industry. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 2:35 pm
Levine, discuss the power of the FDA, federal pre-emption and what the upcoming ruling means for the future of Pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 3:42 am
No problem: In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation (Patent Baristas) US: FTC Commissioner speaks out on follow-on biologics – current initiatives and long-term goals (FDA Law Blog) US: Hatch-Waxman Act-related lawsuits likely to drop, but generic companies may start to challenge biotechnology patents, says David Pritikin (Law360) US: Sequenom sues rival genetic research company Ibis Biosciences alleging infringement of DNA analysis patents (Law360)… [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 5:00 am
Although he agreed that the FDCA would allow a company to unilaterally strengthen a warning, he framed Ms. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 4:00 am
Levine (06-1249), on whether pharmaceutical companies can be sued under state law for ineffective drug labels the FDA had previously approved. [read post]
2 Nov 2008, 4:00 am
Levine (06-1249), on whether pharmaceutical companies can be sued under state law for ineffective drug labels the FDA had previously approved. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 3:17 pm
Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) reveals that top FDA regulators did not trust pharmaceutical companies to warn patients of new risks associated with prescription drugs. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 2:17 pm
In 2000 a state court jury in Vermont awarded Diana Levine $6.5 million in a product liability lawsuit against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 11:53 am
You can separately subscribe to the Pharma & Biotech edition of the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review by subscribing by email, or selecting ‘all posts’ or ‘Pharma, Biotech & Chem’ for the RSS option at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com]   Highlights this week included: Oxytrol (Oxybutynin) - US: Watson files patent infringement lawsuit against Barr over application to market generic Oxytrol; Barr challenges Oxytrol patent… [read post]
30 Oct 2008, 4:38 pm
Levine sued the manufacturer, Wyeth, contending the company suppressed key information and neglected its duty to warn consumers that such injections could have horrific side effects. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 8:35 pm
Thus, drug companies ask the courts to imply that preemption exists even though it was not expressly legislated.Now on to the three blogs:First in the dock is the Drug and Device Blog -- whose authors defend pharmaceutical companies from drug lawsuits -- with Everything You Need To Know About Wyeth v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 8:23 pm
A Supreme Court ruling for Wyeth in Levine v Wyeth would nationalize the Michigan disaster and prevent all United States citizens from pursuing big pharmacuetical companies for the devastating consequences of bad drugs. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 9:03 am
§ §341, 343(b), 343(c), 343(d), 343(e), 343(f), 343(g), 343(h), 343(i), 343(k), 343(q), or 343(r)) relating to food.Drug and device companies don't have that problem, which - as we explained in our prior post - is why the California Supreme Court had to jump through all the hoops it did to avoid preemption.So with this point in mind, we look at the defendants' certiorari petition in Albertsons/Farm Raised Salmon. [read post]
22 Oct 2008, 11:02 am
It's drifting about along with the autumn leaves.How will the Supreme Court rule in Wyeth v. [read post]