Search for: "Label v Label"
Results 5521 - 5540
of 13,305
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Feb 2015, 6:22 am
CollegeSource, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 3:26 am
” See Pom v. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 1:01 pm
Accord Wheat v. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 9:42 am
Teal Bay Alliances, LLC v. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 6:38 am
M-Edge Accessories LLC v. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 6:15 am
The case in question is Speciality European Pharma Ltd v Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd & Madaus GmbH [2015] EWCA Civ 54, a decision of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales, last Friday. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 1:37 pm
Safe Harbor for Off-Label Promotion? [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 6:08 am
U.S. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 5:25 am
Problems w/theft label: Owner retains a copy! [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 1:15 am
* Warner-Lambert v Actavis Mark 2, still at first instance: more on Swiss claims, Skinny Labels, and no StrikeoutDarren covers another Arnoldian decision in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 223 (Pat). [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 11:28 am
A two-dimensional model with an individual v.collective axis along with a conservative v. liberal axis would come closer to the truth.Now a bit about the measles flap. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 12:01 am
But if in fact the instructions issued in Georgia v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 3:38 pm
The Ninth Circuit swung mightily and missed with McClellan v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 9:43 am
Turning to the issue of likelihood of consumer confusion, the Ninth Circuit stated that it had to use the factors from AMF, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 7:57 am
Therefore, he found:I believe I have said enough to show that there was ample material before him [the judge] to conclude, solely on the basis of Figure 1 and the evidence given in relation to it, that the FDA label would render obvious a range of doses which included 8 + 6 q3w. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:41 am
He did not, however, click on a blue link (labeled `Click to See Instructions for Question 11.i’) below question 11–i before doing so. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
Its reasoning for so holding is entirely consistent with the approach to section 60(2) laid down by the Court of Appeal in this country in Grimme v Scott and KCI v Smith & Nephew (see my previous judgment at [102]).Fourthly, the Court took into account (at [4.34]-[4.36]) the fact that Sun had not taken steps which it could have taken, but this does not appear to have been critical to its reasoning. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:28 am
Continuing my effort to catch up with the Court of International Trade and one decision of the Federal Circuit, we now come upon JBLU, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 4:26 am
Lyft Inc. and O'Connor v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 4:10 am
An example of this is the recent case of Lagunitas Brewing Co. v. [read post]
