Search for: "Eli Lilly "
Results 1381 - 1400
of 2,131
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2019, 11:23 am
” Eli Lilly & Co. v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 12:53 pm
Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 9:10 am
Reg.48697–48698.This inconsistency had been an argument for those supporting the Cuozzo position; Reuters noted:Cuozzo was supported by several industry groups and companies, which urged the justices to take the case.One friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case on behalf of 3M Co, Caterpillar Inc, Eli Lilly and Co and Qualcomm Inc said the patent office reviews and litigation in district court needed to be streamlined for the "proper functioning of the patent system… [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 1:47 pm
Eli Lilly & Co., 2012 WL 1893551, at *3 (D. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 5:42 am
Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 2:26 pm
Finally, there was an analysis of the recent decision of the District Court of The Hague that the Dutch part of Eli Lilly and Company's patent EP 1 313 508 is valid. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 10:22 am
[If you want some handy tips on how to speed-read all those comments, try the Wired How-To Wiki, here] In case you missed it, Eli Lilly and Company v Human Genome Sciences, Inc UKSC 2012/0220 is not going on appeal to the United Kingdom's Supreme Court. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 1:34 am
Never too late 78 [week ending on Sunday 27 December] – Zer-sum claim and lookalike products | 2015 Copyright Awards | Santa Claus and Section 52 | Jani writes on Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited | IP Hairballs | Actavis v Eli Lilly | Power outage at USPTO | Santa's GC resigns | Pet rock and IP.Never too late 77 [week ending on Sunday 20 December] – GC on 5-stripe shoe mark | EPO BoA… [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 2:48 pm
Few would deny patents to Genetch, Eli Lilly, Biogen and others as they develop drugs that deal with Alzheimer’s and dementia, look for cures for diabetes, and create titanium hips and better pacemakers. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 4:45 pm
Eli Lilly & Co. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2021, 12:55 pm
See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568 (“A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, ‘requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,’ of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 1:24 am
The USTR letter also indicates that the administration intends to maintain the controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions of NAFTA, which allowed pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly to sue Canada for the country's decision not to grant two drug patents. [read post]
18 May 2018, 5:25 am
Eli Lilly& Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 4:43 pm
Eli Lilly & Co., No. 09-0222-cv, Slip op. [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 3:41 pm
UK Supreme Court moves towards a UK Doctrine of Equivalents in Lilly pemetrexed battle? [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 10:32 am
”Even here, however, we see signs that UK courts are trying to be more consistent with the EPO, and in the HGS v Lilly litigation, reading the decision of the Supreme Court in Human Genome Sciences Inc. v Eli Lilly and Company [2011] UKSC 51 (see IPKat here) it is possible discern in the judgment a desire to not only apply the jurisprudence of the EPO Boards of Appeal, but also to reach the same conclusion (of sufficiency of the claims) on the specific facts of… [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 3:23 am
. | Design v Copyright in Italy | Unitary patent and double patenting | Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor | IKEA in Indonesia | Eli Lilly v Janssen Sciences. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 8:43 am
Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. [read post]
16 Aug 2021, 2:37 pm
Eli Lilly & Co. v. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
Although this claim was not considered on its merits because it was time barred, the court (in preliminary proceedings) accepted that patent assignments may “unduly” lessen competition where “the assignment increases the assignees' market power in excess of that inherent in the patent rights assigned” (Eli Lilly v Apotex 2009 FC 991 at para. 750, 881, aff’d 2010 FCA 240; see also Apotex v Eli Lilly 2005 FCA 361). [read post]
