Search for: "Teva Pharmaceuticals v. FDA, et al" Results 41 - 60 of 101
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 May 2009, 5:18 am
’ (Patent Docs) Atripla/Truvada (Efavirenz, Emtricitabine, Tenofovir) – US: Gilead Sciences files second patent infringement lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceuticals over Emtricitabine, a component of Truvada and Atripla (SmartBrief) (The IP Factor) (GenericsWeb) Champix (Varenicline) – India: Pfizer responds to Dr Reddy’s post-grant opposition to Champix filed at Mumbai Patent Office (GenericsWeb) (Spicy IP) Corpril (Ramipril) –… [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 2:20 am by Marie Louise
: Daiichi Sankyo Co Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents (The SPC Blog) Coversyl (Perindopril) – Australia: FCAFC: Servier denied patent amendment on appeal: Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex (Patentology) Prandin (Repaglinide) – US: Paddock fails to dismiss Novo’s Prandin patent suit (Patent Docs) Spiriva (Tiotropium bromide monohydrate) – Israel: Patent status in question, in need of legislative fix (America-Israel Patent Law) Temodar (Temozolomide)… [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 8:41 am by Kali Borkoski
Brief in opposition of Edmund Brown et al. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 4:30 am
Sandoz Pharmaceuticals GmbH et al (EPLAW) Prilosec (Omeprazole) – US: AstraZeneca ordered to pay attorney’s fees for ‘baseless’ suit to protect Prilosec OTC: AstraZeneca AB et al. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 9:19 pm by Marie Louise
Merck (Kluwer Patent Blog) Keppra (Levetiracetam) – US: Orange Book patent listing precipitates DJ action to trigger generic Keppra XR 180-day exclusivity forfeiture: Par Pharmaceutical v UCB et al (FDA Law Blog) (Patent Docs) Naropin (Ropivacaine) – US: Judge O’Malley in dissent: Patent assignments should be a matter of state law: Abraxis BioScience v. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 7:47 pm by Kelly
: AMP et al v USPTO et al; Intervet v Merial (ipeg) US: OGD has put the brakes on ANDA supplement reviews; Will it help push generic drug user fees along? [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 11:45 am
  Mylan et al argued that the IPR could continue because Allergan was the "true owner of the challenged patents".Substance matters more than form and if the substance of the transaction has a party retaining all substantial rights under the patent, then they are a "patent owner" irrespective of whether the transaction characterizes them as such (see Waterman v Mackenzie (1891); Speedplay v Behop (2000); Alfred E Mann Foundation… [read post]