Search for: "ACTAVIS"
Results 221 - 240
of 1,005
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jun 2018, 5:30 am
Actavis. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 2:01 am
It is not clear if the Judge was seeking to distinguish a “general” doctrine of equivalence from the doctrine of equivalence formulated by the Supreme Court in Actavis. [read post]
9 Jun 2018, 2:26 pm
Actavis that went to the US Supreme Court. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 3:02 am
Actavis | Can YouTube be primarily liable for users' infringements? [read post]
31 May 2018, 7:53 am
For example, in addition to those points raised above, an area which has been subject to much debate is the appropriate remedy for cross-label infringement of second medical use patents – this may come as a result of the Supreme Court’s pending decision in Warner-Lambert v Actavis (if the patent is found to be valid and infringed), or we may have to wait a little longer. [read post]
28 May 2018, 7:53 am
Actavis. [read post]
25 May 2018, 9:27 am
Following on from the Warner-Lambert v Actavis [2015] EWHC 485 (Pat) (prescription by brand) Fujifilm v AbbVie [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat) (Arrow declaration) and Unwired Planet v Huawei [2017] EWHC 2988 (Pat) (global FRAND terms) decisions, this provides another example of the UK Patents Court providing highly specific and tailored relief appropriate to the facts of the case. [read post]
18 May 2018, 6:08 am
Actavis Labs FL, Inc., Judge Chesler barred one of Actavis’s infringement arguments made during summary judgment as untimely because the argument was not sufficiently disclosed in its infringement contentions. [read post]
18 May 2018, 5:25 am
The court then issued a permanentinjunction against Actavis’s manufacture, use, offer tosell, or sale of its generic version of OPANA®ER prior tothe expiration of the ’122 and ’216 patents. [read post]
17 May 2018, 1:36 pm
Having presided over major decisions impacting both on IP law and practice, not the least Actavis v Eli Lilly, Baron Neuberger will be sharing his insights and reflections on “IP in the UK and Europe – a view from the top”. [read post]
14 May 2018, 12:30 pm
Birss would not be drawn on his views of the Supreme Court's decision in Eli Lilly v Actavis (see the IPKat here - the 109 comments on the post is a good indication of how controversial this decision has been). [read post]
10 May 2018, 11:12 pm
Actavis case. [read post]
10 May 2018, 8:45 am
Natasha Nayak, Jindal Global Law is Situating Patent Validity in Antitrust's Rule of Reason: Exploring the Bounds of Actavis. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 4:48 am
However he did not agree with Arnold J that it is necessary to determine whether the product embodies the inventive advance of the patent, which is referred to in the CJEU’s decision in Actavis v Sanofi (C-443/12), noting that the Actavis case was only concerned with Article 3(c), not 3(a) and commenting that he had difficulty in understanding the difference between the “core inventive advance” and the invention disclosed by the claims. [read post]
22 Apr 2018, 8:40 am
Actavis applied for the entire claim to be struck out or for summary dismissal. [read post]
6 Apr 2018, 8:03 am
The Court of Appeal heard arguments regarding whether, if they had accepted Kymab's construction of "in situ replacement", they could nevertheless have found infringement on the basis of Actavis v Eli Lilly (Eli Lilly v Actavis UK [2017] UKSC 48, IPKat post). [read post]
6 Apr 2018, 3:42 am
Interestingly, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Actavis v Lilly having been handed down after the first instance judgment in the present proceedings, Regeneron appears to have argued that even if Kymab was right on construction, there was still infringement under the newly-conceived English law doctrine of equivalents. [read post]
31 Mar 2018, 8:30 am
Strong brands as a barrier to entry, this time from "The Economist" | UK IPO publishes consultation on implementing Trade Mark Directive 2015 into UK law | Top 10 issues from submissions before UK Supreme Court in Warner-Lambert v Actavis second medical use battle | EPO looking for new legally qualified members of the Boards of Appeal | Repair or reconstruction: Where do you draw the line for exhaustion under patent law? [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 9:14 am
Never Too Late 183 [week ending 18 February] Mr Justice Carr's L'Oreal v RN Ventures decision bristles with warnings on Actavis v Lilly claim interpretation, equivalents and prosecution history (Parts I and II) | Can Wenzhou and cigarette lighters tell us something about why there are IP rights? [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 4:26 am
This week's highlights include the Dutch equivalent of Actavis v ICOS (Tadalafil), a US ruling on patent eligible subject matter and medical diagnostic methods and contradiction between the CJEU and the Spanish Supreme Court on SPC regulations. [read post]
