Search for: "SmithKline Beecham"
Results 141 - 160
of 436
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Mar 2021, 6:18 am
SmithKline Beecham Clinical Lab., 950 F. [read post]
11 Oct 2007, 2:32 pm
According to the fifty-two page, eight-count complaint signed by Sherry Knowles, Global Head of Corporate Intellectual Property for SmithKline Beecham,3. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 4:17 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline along with another 190 cases, according to an order signed by Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Sandra Mazer Moss last week.The cases have settled for confidential amounts, according to the lawyer who litigates the cases. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 9:55 am
Thousands of patients have filed lawsuits against GlaxoSmithKline PLC (formerly SmithKline Beecham), alleging that Avandia caused them to suffer heart attacks and other health problems. [read post]
18 Jul 2008, 8:33 pm
I just got a copy of a decision from the Southern District of Indiana that held preemption did not prevent a failure to warn lawsuit over Paxil: Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 4:10 am
Va.) and SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
28 Nov 2006, 7:18 am
It contains just four reported cases, but they're pretty big ones: * Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd (the ECJ's ruling that it's not deceptive for a trade mark consisting of a name to be registered in someone else's name, so long as no-one's pretending the person named has any connection with the proprietor's business);* SmithKline Beecham v Apotex (Court of Appeal decision on whether someone who isn't a party to patent infringement… [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 10:24 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp. after the jump. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 4:00 pm
Sheehan (Swarthmore, Harvard Law) was also the lead counsel in a case against SmithKline Beecham that resulted in a $332 million recovery. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 2:01 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 7:43 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., slip op. (7th Cir. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 3:04 pm
Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 9:54 am
SmithKline Beecham, Corp., challenges the Ninth Circuit’s decision that sales representatives were subject to the outside sales exemption of the FLSA. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 9:54 am
SmithKline Beecham, Corp., challenges the Ninth Circuit’s decision that sales representatives were subject to the outside sales exemption of the FLSA. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 2:40 pm
This development in the Ninth Circuit case of SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 3:34 pm
” [Cover letter dated May 5, 1999 from Claire Khan, PhD at SmithKline Beecham to Jena Weber (HFD-510) regarding Phase IV commitments, Page 3]. [read post]
7 Jan 2007, 4:53 pm
L.J. 115 (2006).The law review article mentioned the paroxetine case:In this recent case, SmithKline Beecham sued Apotex for infringing its patent for the drug Paxil (whose chemical name is paroxetine). n106 The district court granted summary judgment for [p. 132] Apotex, holding that the patent at issue was anticipated by a previous patent held by SmithKline. n107 The patent at issue claimed the compound paroxetine, but did not define it in terms of its structural… [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 3:25 pm
" On appeal, based on its analysis of the FLSA, implementing regulations adopted by the Department of Labor, and applicable precedent, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Smithkline Beecham and held the FLSA outside salespersons exemption applies to PSRs. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 11:40 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 1:27 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., the Supreme Court made clear that not all definitions of an exemption are to be narrowly construed against employers. [read post]
