Search for: "APPLIED MEDICAL V US SURGICAL CORP"
Results 41 - 60
of 93
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Aug 2013, 5:00 am
Oct. 27, 1999) (“that the [product] can be applied with hooks rather than with screws . [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 11:52 am
Ciba Vision Corp., slip op. [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 1:50 pm
Bayer Corp., 2012 WL 1435192, at *4 (Conn. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 11:58 am
Cordis Corp., 625 F. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 9:35 am
Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165-66, 34 USPQ2d 1161 (1995); Brunswick Corp. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 7:25 am
Mandek Corp., 281 N.J. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 7:40 am
Optical Radiation Corp., 22 F.3d 540, 544 (3d Cir. 1994); Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 1:34 pm
” Unfortunately, that is the word the court used in Cates v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 1:15 pm
Stryker Corp., 2012 WL 33360, at *5 n.6 (D. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 10:20 am
The Seroquel debacle gives us an answer. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 2:00 pm
This has been particularly useful in medical device cases covered by Riegel preemption, as it requires a nexus between a claimed FDCA violation and the device that the plaintiff actually used. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 12:50 pm
Rochester Medical Corp., 2011 WL 475009, at *15-16 (E.D. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 1:01 pm
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 285 F.3d 238, 239 n.2 (3d Cir. 2002) (applying Pennsylvania law) (Bexis’s case); Bogle v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 1:13 pm
Rounds required subsequent medical treatment and additional knee surgeries after using Carticel, so she sued the manufacturer in negligence. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 5:00 am
Genzyme Corp., ___ Fed. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 11:17 am
Co. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 12:43 pm
Leonati, is synonymous with “substantial connection”, as that phrase was used by McLachlin C.J.C. above in Resurfice Corp. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 8:00 am
Riegel v. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 8:03 am
P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 12:26 pm
Hahn applies to medical devices. [read post]
