Search for: "In Interest of Ep"
Results 741 - 760
of 1,023
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jan 2010, 9:43 am
Forward PE ratios (which use equity analyst estimates) have also become realistic as equity analysts have concurrently brought down target prices and moved up EPS estimates.There is one more interesting point in this analysis, which is that corporations are also competing with private equity firms for the same targets, but KPMG believes they hold a better position this year. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 8:28 am
The proxy here gave management's projections that were actually used by Goldman, and those projections included net revenue, net income, EPS and EBITDA estimates for five years. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 12:45 pm
Now that every NSSTA member has voting rights they must take an active role in questioning leadership and making sure that those that are elected are accountable for serving the interests of membership above their own personal interests. [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 7:48 am
Whatever the amounts, though, it will be interesting to see how shareholders react to the big numbers. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 12:56 am
These modern progressive Pirates are not interested in pillaging, plundering and keeping all the booty for themselves. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 2:14 am
This is an important public task, where the EPO needs to balance the interests of the public against the interests of patent applicants. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 1:42 am
The dispute in Coloplast v Salts related to Coloplast's patent EP(UK) 2854723, and the alleged infringement of the patent by Salts, another ostomy product company. [read post]
17 May 2016, 3:34 pm
Why the interest? [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 3:51 am
.* Convatec v Smith & Nephew: why the Court of Appeal was wrongThe IPKat has reported already twice on the interesting Court of Appeal, England and Wales, decision in Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc, relating to ConvaTec's patent EP (UK) 1,343,510 on silverised wound dressings (see Jeremy here and Darren here). [read post]
2 May 2019, 11:10 am
I don’t think anybody would have any interest that that should not be possible. [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 6:02 am
The indictment is interesting. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 7:10 am
A fourth patent, EP (UK) 1 828 412 “Improved Method of Nucleotide Detection” was found to be obvious. [read post]
27 May 2021, 12:45 pm
The facts of the case relevant to this blog may be summarized as follows: A Spanish company filed a revocation action against patent EP 888 289 (“EP ‘289”) and its corresponding SPC, which protects lacosamide, an antiepileptic drug. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
The present petition for review aimed at setting aside decision T 1888/06 where the Board had revoked the opposed European patent.Unsurprisingly, the petition was dismissed as clearly inadmissible: the R 106 cudgel was used against the petitioners.There is, however, an interesting passage in the decision. [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 4:39 am
The facts of the case may be summarized as follows: The complainant filed a patent infringement action against the defendant alleging infringement of patent EP 1.489.342 (“EP ‘342”). [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 4:35 am
A case relating to the U.S. patent corresponding to EP’797 was also brought before the U.S. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 4:35 am
A case relating to the U.S. patent corresponding to EP’797 was also brought before the U.S. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 1:43 am
The scope of the French decision In my view, two aspects of judgment are particularly interesting: plausibility and priority. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 2:26 am
In particular noteworthy is how the Judge considers the ‘legal interest’ requirement while balancing the interests of ABI and Heineken. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
Biotech specialists, you might find this decision interesting! [read post]
