Search for: "IN RE BAYER HEALTHCARE"
Results 81 - 100
of 103
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Oct 2012, 11:00 pm
Bayer Corporation calling into question whether a plaintiff can do anything to bind the members of a putative class before it is certified. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 2:05 am
App. 1971); In re Guidant Corp. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
., 712 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2013) – all of which also travel under the heading, In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. [read post]
24 May 2012, 4:23 am
See, e.g., In re Trasylol Prods. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 2:14 am
While we're on the subject, can we get judges to rewrite the New Jersey and Minnesota statutes of limitations to add a borrowing statute? [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
Thus, in In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, 489 F. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Bayer Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1938428, at *5-6 (7th Cir. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:09 am
Dauphin Co. 1999).Naturally, we're most interested in the recall cases involving prescription medical products. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Naturally, we’re most interested in the recall cases involving prescription medical products. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Naturally, we’re most interested in the recall cases involving prescription medical products. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Naturally, we’re most interested in the recall cases involving prescription medical products. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 9:00 am
: (Spicy IP),USD 20 billion going off-patent: (Patent Circle),Canadian Prices Review Board asserts jurisdiction over products sold in US, but imported into Canada under Special Access Program: (Gowlings),Canadian Court of Appeal affirms decision allowing patent-owner to be joined to proceedings: Cobalt v Pfizer and Pharmascience v Pfizer: (Gowlings),PharmaStem appeals stem cell patent: asks for greater deference to patent examiners: PharmaStem … [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 2:36 am
Freecycle Network (Seattle Trademark Lawyer) (Property, intangible) (The Ninth) (Marks & Secrets) TTAB precedential no. 42: TTAB affirms refusal to register shape of Chevron’s ‘Pole Spanner Sign’ as non-distinctive (TTABlog) US Trade Marks – Lawsuits and strategic steps Ashley Furniture – Court orders pre-answer brief re viability of Lanham [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 1:37 pm
We’ve covered a lot of topics since we started DDLaw in late 2006. [read post]
23 Aug 2008, 1:23 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: DRM for streaming music dies a quiet death: (Electronic Frontier Foundation), (Techdirt) CAFC decides Apotex and Impax infringed AstraZeneca’s Prilosec patents: (Law360), (Patent Prospector), (Patent Docs), (GenericsWeb), CAFC upholds lower court’s decision finding USPTO was within its rights to subject a Cooper patent to… [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 2:00 am
: (IPBiz), US: Proposals for the approval of generic biologics under consideration: (Pharmacapsules@Gowlings), US: A paradigm shift in obviousness for pharma, biotech: (IP Law360), US: USPTO’s Bruce Kisliuk addresses ACI Pharma/biotech patent claim drafting and prosecution conference: (Patent Docs), US: New bill to provide biotech companies Sarbanes-Oxley relief: (California Biotech Law Blog), US: Biotech and pharma companies spent millions on lobbying in 2007: (Patent… [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
ITERATIVE DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM Basic propositional logic teaches that the disjunctive syllogism (modus tollendo ponens) is a valid argument, in which one of its premises is a disjunction (P v Q), and the other premise is the negation of one of the disjuncts: P v Q ~P_____ ∴ Q See Irving Copi & Carl Cohen Introduction to Logic at 362 (2005). [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 10:04 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 1:50 pm
Bayer Corp., 2012 WL 1435192, at *4 (Conn. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 2:41 pm
In the last month, we’ve seen two more appellate decisions definitively rejecting the idea of some sort of separate cause of action – apart from warning or design defect – for “failure to test,” whatever that might be. [read post]
