Search for: "US v. Abed" Results 41 - 60 of 1,822
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 May 2012, 8:41 pm by Mark Summerfield
Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2011] FCA 1520 (14 December 2011) Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 2) [2012] FCA 142 (28 February 2012) Watson Pharma Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2012] FCA 200 (9 March 2012) Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 3) [2012] FCA 265 (23 March 2012) AstraZenenca’s cholesterol drug CRESTOR will remain without generic competition in the Australian market for the foreseeable future, following… [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 1:48 pm by Greg Mersol
Indeed, the court concluded that AB 51’s use of sanctions to prevent the use of such agreements was “the law’s fatal flaw. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 9:59 pm by Patent Docs
In Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd v AstraZeneca AB, the England and Wales High Court considered the scope of "Swiss" medical use claims. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 3:36 pm by JT
Term 2d Dept. 2011) I am not going to lose sleep over AB Medical not prevailing on this appeal – remember when AB  used to always win? [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 1:42 am
Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd. v AstraZeneca AB [2011] EWHC 1831 (Pat) (15 July 2011) raises an interesting point on the interpretation of claims. [read post]
Under AB 1228, a fast-food restaurant franchisor—defined using the same definitions as stated in the FAST Act—would share all civil liability for its the franchisee’s potential violations, including violations under the California Labor Code, the Business and Professions Code, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and authorize enforcement of provisions against the franchisor to the same extent that they may be enforced against the franchisee. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 1:56 am by INFORRM
In AB Bank Ltd v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC ([2016]EWHC 2082 (Comm)), Teare J set aside a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) made against a bank in the UAE on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to serve the order on the bank out of the jurisdiction because none of the permitted jurisdictional gateways under Practice Direction 6B to the Civil Procedure Rules were applicable. [read post]