Search for: "Pfizer, Inc." Results 1441 - 1460 of 1,513
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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:… [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]
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]
1 May 2008, 11:21 am
Beretta USA, Inc., No. 05-6942-cv (2d Cir. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 12:41 pm by Erin Miller
Brief in opposition of respondents Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. et al. [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]
4 Nov 2021, 5:37 am by Eugene Volokh
I'm putting up some excerpts from my new draft article, The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation, hoping to get some feedback. [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 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]
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]