Search for: "C Lillie"
Results 101 - 120
of 444
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2018, 1:48 am
| The Céline affair: what moral rights can and can’t do…even in France | Can Nativity scene characters attract copyright protection under Italian law? [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 7:30 am
”Henry loved when he was in "shear mode"Claim "Interpretation" - it is all about what you say and disclaimWith the old "Construction" heading now replaced with "Interpretation", Mr Justice Carr stated he would be applying"principles concerning normal interpretation and equivalents set out by the Supreme Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48, [2018] and by the Patents Court in Mylan v Yeda [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat) at [134] - [139];… [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 2:33 am
EssaysWas the Supreme Court right in Actavis v Eli Lilly to introduce a doctrine of equivalents when determining infringement of patents in the UK? [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 4:16 am
In C-493/12 – Eli Lilly and Company the CJEU had stressed that the “infringement test” was not to be applied for determining whether a product is “protected by a basic patent in force”. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 10:05 pm
Article 3(a): a spectrum of specificity The Court of Appeal reviewed the case law of the CJEU and pending references, focussing on Case C-322/10 Medeva BV v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and Case C-493/12 Eli Lilly & Co Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 2:57 am
The UCL debate on the UK Supreme Court decision Actavis v Eli Lilly ("Equivalents: K = Na. [read post]
1 Dec 2017, 11:35 am
Big pharma players such as Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Allergan are committed to voluntary price restraints, while companies such as Novartis and Roche are in favor of value-based pricing. [read post]
24 Nov 2017, 7:07 am
Brian CorderyFew would dispute that the Actavis v Eli Lilly decision from the Supreme Court in July 2017 represented – for better or for worse – a major change to the scope of protection of patents in the UK. [read post]
23 Nov 2017, 12:13 am
Sir Robin used the example of Gilead Hepatitis C drug, which costs £70,000 when it was introduced. [read post]
9 Nov 2017, 9:04 am
Eric Sutton is a senior patent counsel at Oracle and an adjunct professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. [read post]
28 Oct 2017, 8:57 am
Citing CJEU case law (C-322/10 ”Medeva” and C-493/12 ”Eli Lilly”) as well as the DKPTO Guide Lines on SPCs – which state that a combination product consisting in the two active ingredients A and B are considered as protected, when A and B are stated in a patent claim – the Court concluded that ”Emtricitabin does not appear in the wording of claim 27, just as emtricitabin is not described by way of chemical name or structural… [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 6:00 am
Contents include:Anthony C. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 3:29 am
The UK judgment considered whether the Actavis generic pemetrexed products, which used (a) pemetrexed diacid, (b) pemetrexed ditromethamine, or (c) pemetrexed dipotassium, directly infringed the UK, Italian, Spanish or French designations of the patent claims, which specify pemetrexed disodium. [read post]
16 Sep 2017, 9:46 am
Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1575 (Fed. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 4:00 am
A motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]) is not the same as a cause of action for attorney misconduct (see Judiciary Law § 487). [read post]
20 Aug 2017, 9:00 pm
Actavis avait saisi les juridictions britanniques en déclaration de non contrefaçon au Royaume Uni, en France, en Italie et en Espagne, du brevet EP1313508 détenu par Eli Lilly. [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 3:41 pm
UK Supreme Court moves towards a UK Doctrine of Equivalents in Lilly pemetrexed battle? [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
R v M; R v C; R v T, heard 19 Jun 2017. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
R v M; R v C; R v T, heard 19 Jun 2017. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 1:00 am
R v M; R v C; R v T, heard 19 Jun 2017. [read post]
