Search for: "Apotex"
Results 481 - 500
of 1,051
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2012, 5:04 am
("Apotex"). [read post]
11 Mar 2012, 3:32 pm
Back in December, Apotex Pty Ltd was unsuccessful in opposing an application by AstraZeneca for a preliminary injunction barring the sale by Apotex of a generic version of CRESTOR (see Preliminary Injunction for CRESTOR—Not All ‘Tablets’ are Equal). [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 5:32 am
Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2011] FCA 1520 (14 December 2011) Interlocutory injunctions – prima facie case – balance of convenience – relevance of delay by patentee, complexity of proceedings, and parties’ conduct and obligations In the first Federal Court decision to follow the ruling of the Full Court in Samsung v Apple (see Samsung v Apple – A Closer Look at the Appeal Decision) Justice Rares has granted a preliminary injunction to pharmaceutical… [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 1:00 am
Apotex Corp., the Federal Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction over AstraZeneca’s ANDA complaint, but also held that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state a viable claim for relief because the ANDAs included Section viii... [read post]
4 Mar 2012, 9:02 am
Next year, the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision will turn 20. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 10:11 am
Apotex, 2005 FCA 361 (Eli Lilly) does not assist Garford because the evidentiary issues at play in Eli Lilly are not present in this case. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 9:35 am
Apotex, 2005 FCA 361 (Eli Lilly) does not assist Garford because the evidentiary issues at play in Eli Lilly are not present in this case. [read post]
25 Feb 2012, 10:04 am
Apotex Inc., 2011 WL 6396792 (D.Del. 2011) Zyprexa In re Zyprexa Products Liab. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 5:49 pm
Apotex et al. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 1:47 pm
Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348 (Fed. [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 7:33 pm
Apotex, et. al (Fed. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 12:39 pm
Apotex challenged the validity, but it was upheld by the U.S. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 10:56 am
In AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. v Apotex Corp., the Court held for defendant generic manufacturers on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2) claim based on defendants’ existing ANDA filings, and claims premised on presumed future labeling amendments were not ripe for adjudication. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 10:56 am
In AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. v Apotex Corp., the Court held for defendant generic manufacturers on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2) claim based on defendants’ existing ANDA filings, and claims premised on presumed future labeling amendments were not ripe for adjudication. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 9:42 pm
Apotex et al., No. 11-1182 (Fed. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 3:43 pm
Apotex Corp., the Court held that alleging infringement under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 8:49 am
Apotex, Inc., 350 F.3d 1235,1239 (Fed. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 6:34 pm
Apotex, Inc., 540 F.3d 1353 (Fed. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 2:30 am
Litigation between Sanofi and Apotex went to the Supreme Court of Canada in the NOC proceedings, where the Court held that the separation method was not obvious, and the validity of the patent was upheld. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 3:00 am
In November, 2010 Apotex paid into court US$556 million in respect of the judgment. [read post]
