Search for: "WARNER-LAMBERT CO V US"
Results 41 - 60
of 124
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Mar 2015, 12:23 pm
.* Warner-Lambert v Actavis Mark 4: harmony between parties in ‘lyrical’ patent disputeLast Thursday, Jeremy reported a High Court Order obtained by Warner-Lambert (part of the Pfizer group) mandating the NHS to release guidance about the prescribing of pregabalin (Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group PTC EHF & Others[2015] EWHC 485 (Pat) (02 March 2015)) [on which see the IPKat earlier posts, here and… [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 2:43 pm
Never too late 32 [week ending Sunday 8 February] –- Brazilian PTO’s delays | The Research Handbook on International Intellectual Property reviewed | Laura Smith-Hewitt | IP, women and leadership: the poll responses | Decline of West’s trust in innovation | Wikipedia public domain photos |CJEU in Case C-383/12 P Environmental Manufacturing LLP v OHIM | The Nordic IP Forum | The future of EPO’s BoA | Warner-Lambert v Actavis Mark 2 |… [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
It is the scientific use of the imagination. [read post]
29 May 2014, 5:00 am
American Honda Co., Inc., 96 F.R.D. 593, 598 (M.D. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 11:29 pm
Cir. 2012) (citing Warner-Lambert Co. v.Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348, 1356 (Fed. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 12:41 pm
Before then, the use had been off label. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 10:05 am
Warner Lambert Co., 309 F.3d 1373 (Fed. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 8:14 am
The Court set out the three factor test noted in Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 2:21 pm
It involved a recurring question that the Supreme Court failed to address in Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 12:54 pm
It involved a recurring question that the Supreme Court failed to address in Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 2:07 pm
Warner-Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85, 94 (2d Cir. 2006)). [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 2:43 pm
Warner Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2006), aff’d by equally divided court, 552 U.S. 440 (2008), attempting to distinguish Buckman Co. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 5:00 am
Warner-Lambert Co. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 10:36 am
The Federal Circuit’s holding was based on the language of Section 271(e)(2) and its decision in Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 7:28 pm
Based on Federal Circuit precedent (i.e., Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 5:49 pm
Based on Federal Circuit precedent – i.e., Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 1:47 pm
Also, the court held that this threshold determination does not depend on the ultimate merits of the claims.However, the court affirmed the ruling as to the lack of ripeness of the infringement claim, citing its holding in Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 8:39 am
Warner-Lambert Co., 122 Cal. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 9:56 am
#1 — DiCosolo v. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 3:30 am
Warner–Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir.2001) the Ninth Circuit held that attorney’s fees must be divided among all members of the plaintiff class for purposes of amount in controversy. [read post]
