Search for: "John F Lilly" Results 41 - 58 of 58
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jun 2009, 2:15 pm
Eli Lilly & Co., 560 F.3d 1366, 1380 (Fed. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 3:49 am
EEO/iNewsSource: iNews Related to Equal Employment Opportunity - © 2009 John D. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 2004) (same; physician considered warning inappropriate) (applying California law).Under these facts, if Conte were an ordinary prescription drug product liability case, plaintiff would have been out of court and out of luck, just like Motus. [read post]
1 May 2008, 11:21 am
One of the ways we feed this blog is doing what comes naturally to us lawyers - reading recent cases - and hoping that something inspires us. [read post]
15 Mar 2008, 7:00 am
India: Gene silencing: (Spicy IP), India: US Patent reform implications for Indian Pharma: (Spicy IP), India: Generic pharmaceutical industry in the spotlight: (International Law Office), India: Supreme Court refuses to stay a Gujarat High Court decision restraining Ranbaxy from airing its controversial ads directed against Paras Pharma's 'Moov' brand: (Spicy IP),India: Patents on ARV drugs could increase costs: (Generic Pharmaceuticals & IP),US: Survey shows most Americans… [read post]
1 Dec 2007, 7:15 am
The Nevada Cerebral Palsy Resource Guide contains State resources compiled by United Cerebral Palsy. [read post]
7 Nov 2007, 2:02 pm
Patent and Trademark Office to reject more patent applications for obviousness without fear of reversal.George Washington University Law Professor John F. [read post]
17 Oct 2007, 7:46 am
George Washington University Law Professor John F. [read post]
17 Oct 2007, 4:16 am
Teleflex: Predictable Reform of Patent Substance and Procedure in the Judiciary" by John F. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 12:43 pm
F Fannin County Includes the cities of Blue Ridge, McCaysville and Morganton. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 4:29 am
., 311 F.3d 1272, 1287 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying Georgia law); Fane v. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 12:04 pm
Several references were made to the absence of any remedy to remove 35 USC § 271(f) and the hope that perhaps there would be a judicial solution in the Microsoft case that would remove yet another contentious issue; it was particularly for the reason of the pendency of the Microsoft case that the current legislation lacks any provision to deal with 35 USC § 271(f) repeal. [read post]