Search for: "WARNER-LAMBERT CO V US"
Results 61 - 80
of 124
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2007, 9:23 am
Warner-Lambert Co., 467 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2006).Epstein pens a few words that defendants in drug cases are unlikely to rely upon. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 4:20 am
******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE Never too late 48 [week ending on Sunday 31 May] - The meaning of EPO appeal system | 3D Printing and the law | Epo and external investigation firms | Umbrella designs | US Supreme Court in Commil USA, LLC v Cisco Systems | European Inventor Award | FIFA and brand integrity | Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Wine in Black GmbH v OHIM |… [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 6:04 am
Levine.Many folks have been reading the tea leaves to try to decide what the decisions in Riegel and Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
28 Aug 2007, 3:48 am
" Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
17 May 2007, 9:09 am
Warner Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85, 97 n.9 (2d Cir. 2006), was amended specifically to delete the Second Circuit's original and ill-conceived (and never-briefed) dictum in that case.(3) Barnhill states that only Colacicco has afforded deference to the FDA's position. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 3:34 am
(Patent Docs) Lipitor (Atorvastatin) – UK Atorvastatin hearing for 11 July – Warner-Lambert v Teva UK (The SPC Blog) Metoclopramide – US: Supreme Court issues decision on generic drug pre-emption: To borrow from Harry Caray – “Holy cow! [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 4:44 am
.* Wild Boys Sometimes Lose It: Duran Duran fail to reclaim their US copyrightDavid Brophy brings his insightful and readable-as-always analysis of the Duran Duran copyright battle, discussing on how the wild boys lost (for now) and stressing the crucial importance of obtaining good advice when the bargaining position is unequal.* AIPPI Rapid Response Report: Debating Lyrica's recurring pain on plausibility, abuse and infringementIn a guest post, Kat friend Steven Willis… [read post]
11 May 2011, 10:14 pm
Warner Bros. [read post]
23 Sep 2007, 2:28 pm
Warner Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2006), amended, 2006 U.S. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 9:00 pm
Warner-Lambert Co., ___ F. [read post]
6 Apr 2023, 6:38 am
So moving to plausibility, the present plausibility test set by the UK Supreme Court in Warner-Lambert is whether the patent contains “something that would cause the skilled person to think that there was a reasonable prospect that the assertion would prove to be true”. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
Warner-Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191, 200-01 (TTAB 1979).Considering the relevant evidence, the Board ruled that confusion is likely, and it sustained the oppositions.(1) Cape Cod,(2) Martha's Vineyard, (3)Nantucket.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
4 May 2011, 4:13 am
(Patent Law Practice Center) US: Abraxis files for patent term adjustment calculation review for patent entitled ‘Compositions and methods of delivery of pharmacological agents’ (Patent Docs) US: ITC: Target date set in Certain Vaginal Ring Birth Control Devices (ITC 337 Law Blog) US: Court confused by patent reexamination results: Cellectricon v Fluxion Biosciences (Patents Post-Grant) Products AndroGel (Testosterone) – US: Abbott sues… [read post]
6 May 2017, 10:11 am
In Warner-Lambert Co v. [read post]
11 Jul 2007, 7:01 am
Warner-Lambert Co., 673 F. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 8:39 am
Warner-Lambert Co., 122 Cal. [read post]
22 May 2015, 10:38 am
Patentees can no longer take for granted profits made during the term of interim injunctive relief, irrespective of the outcome of the substantive claim.More generally, as regards the availability of interim relief against generic pharmaceutical companies where an invention is claimed in Swiss form, the outcome of the appeal of Arnold J's decision in Warner-Lambert v Actavis [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat) is awaited with interest.Many thanks to both Paul and Ailsa for both the… [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 7:05 am
In a second case, the Court divided evenly, 4-4, in Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 1:27 am
"
Warner-Lambert Company v. [read post]
26 Dec 2007, 8:05 am
Perhaps a favorable decision in Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
