Search for: "Bristol Myers Company v. District Court"
Results 41 - 60
of 108
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2021, 11:33 am
With Specific Jurisdiction, the Court’s recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 2:09 am
One case, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
26 May 2007, 11:26 pm
District Judge Sid ney Stein in Manhattan could make a decision any day.Spokesmen for Bristol-Myers, Sanofi and Apotex all declined to comment. [read post]
17 May 2021, 1:12 pm
Rather than choosing Iowa or Colorado, the companies chose the Northern District of California, which is Trimble’s home court. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 10:15 am
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699 (2d Cir. 2019) followed suit and unanimously affirmed snap removal as a procedural vehicle to remove to federal court. [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 7:56 pm
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 5:52 pm
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 11:49 pm
For those interested, the Indian patent number is 213457 and the case details are: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 6:00 am
The Court’s ruling clarified its decisions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
8 May 2020, 3:21 pm
Thus, the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 9:03 am
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 11:50 am
Ct. 746 (2014)—and particularly in light of the Court’s more recent decisions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 6:33 pm
Bristol-Myers Squibb was the first company to develop and patent a liquid pharmaceutical composition of megestrol acetate and had a patent that taught that stable suspensions of megestrol acetate can be created but that the type and concentration of the surfactant in solution is critical to creating a stable flocculated suspension. [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 6:56 am
The agency’s argument that the regulation leaves the decision up to the employer was unavailing, the court explained, under the competitor standing doctrine and had already been rejected in earlier cases, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2011, 5:00 pm
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
15 May 2009, 4:00 am
All rights reserved.In Tice v Bristol-Myers Squibb, No. 07-3977, the U.S. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 6:14 am
”); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2022, 9:01 pm
Montana Eighth Judicial District. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 4:29 am
And in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 11:47 am
The defendants in both sets of actions were Sanofi Aventis and Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership (collectively “Sanofi”) and Apotex Corporation (“Apotex”). [read post]
