Search for: "Pfizer Inc." Results 1301 - 1320 of 1,369
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Sep 2008, 8:56 pm
Conference of September 29, 2008 __________________ Docket: 07-811 Case name: Morris, et al. v Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. et al. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
Of course, whether reliance and causation are elements of a UCL claim is an unresolved question that the Supreme Court is expected to address in In re Tobacco and Pfizer. [read post]
11 Mar 2025, 2:29 am by Jonathan Rosenfeld
(a subsidiary of Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation), Sanofi US Services Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sanofi S.A., Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 2:48 pm by Ben Vernia
 These included—to give just one example—the drug manufacturers Wyeth and Pfizer Inc., which paid $784.6 million to resolve federal and state claims that Wyeth knowingly reported false prices on two acid reflux drugs. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 4:02 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1230-1234 (9th Cir. 1996)), making it much harder to level the playing field. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 12:20 am
In case after case, Tessera Inc. relied on Jianman Qu's expert testimony and computer model to prove patent infringement against the chip industry's biggest companies. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 1:13 pm by Bexis
Pfizer, Inc., 358 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2004), on there being no duty – or no causation – where plaintiffs demand that physicians be warned about things they already know: [The prescriber] knew of the risk of malignancies associated with 6–MP and Humira, but still prescribed the medication. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 4:30 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 1:27 pm by Bexis
Pfizer, Inc., 773 N.E.2d 720 (Ill. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 1:30 pm
Medtronic Inc., No. 06-179, Justice Antonin Scalia said that permitting state juries to impose liability on the maker of an approved device “disrupts the federal scheme,” under which the F.D.A. has the responsibility for evaluating the risks and benefits of a new device and assuring that it is safe and effective for its intended use. [read post]