Search for: "ACTAVIS"
Results 21 - 40
of 1,005
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2022, 12:00 am
The Opponent's lack of inventive step arguments in this case were similar to the types of argument successfully employed in the UK courts in, for example, Actavis v ICOS ([2019] USKC 15, IPKat) and Bayer v Teva ([2021] EWHC 2690 (Pat), IPKat). [read post]
21 Oct 2022, 6:07 am
The difference between plausibility and lack of implausibility was also explored in Warner-Lambert v Actavis [2018] UKSC 56 (IPKat). [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 12:35 pm
The court held that plaintiffs had not met their burden of proof under Actavis to show that “the patent holder pa[id] the potential entrant to defer entry . . . [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 4:30 am
This was done by way of the three questions set out by Lord Neuberger in Actavis: Does the variant achieve substantially the same result in substantially the same way as the invention (i.e. the inventive concept revealed by the patent)? [read post]
11 Aug 2022, 8:26 am
This argument was specifically mentioned in Actavis although the facts of that case meant that it was not considered. [read post]
21 Jul 2022, 8:20 am
Hacon HHJ referred to his earlier decision in Kwikbolt Limited v Airbus Operations Limited [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC), where he suggested that focussing on the variant by reference to the integers of the claim can be a useful way of considering an alleged equivalent: “[99] The doctrine of equivalents as explained in Actavis requires the variant to be specified. [read post]
14 Jul 2022, 9:55 pm
By Kevin E. [read post]
8 Jul 2022, 3:47 am
Actavis Labs (Fed. [read post]
10 May 2022, 9:44 am
Actavis that conduct within the scope of granted patent rights may still constitute an antitrust violation. [read post]
6 May 2022, 6:10 am
[Closing out Week Two of our FTC UMC Rulemaking symposium is a contribution from a very special guest: Commissioner Noah J. [read post]
28 Apr 2022, 9:15 am
Actavis. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 12:04 pm
Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), which held that such payments are unlawful when they are “large and unjustified. [read post]
22 Mar 2022, 4:38 am
“ As regards the 3(c) issue, this provision has been largely left undisturbed since the rulings of the court in Sanofi v Actavis[2] and Boehringer Ingelheim v Actavis[3] which held that even if Article 3(a) was satisfied, in circumstances where a basic patent included a claim to a product comprising an active ingredient which constituted the sole subject matter of the invention and for which the holder of that patent had already obtained an SPC as well as a subsequent claim… [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 12:44 am
However, as noted in the Finnish decision, CJEU case law has not yet harmonised interpretation of Article 3(a) under Royalty Pharma and its previous interpretations of Article 3(c), as in Actavis I (C-443/12) and Actavis II (C-577/13) (IPKat).The referralThe Supreme Court of Ireland referred 4 questions to the CJEU, the full text of which are provided in full below* ([2022] IESC 11). [read post]
4 Feb 2022, 8:19 am
Actavis, 570 U.S. 136 (2013). [read post]
17 Jan 2022, 1:08 am
Whilst the fact of the cases differ, the PTAB and CAFC reasoning in Teva vs Corcept is markedly different, for example, to the reasoning of the UK High Court in Bayer v Teva [2021] EWHC 2690 (Pat) (IPKat) and Actavis v ICOS (IPKat), in which inventions arising from multi-step drug development programs were found obvious-to-try in view of a known treatment effect for a particular drug, regardless of whether there was an unpredictable technical effect. [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 12:49 am
The most recent decisions we have from the CJEU on Article 3(c) are Actavis I (C-443/12) and Actavis II (C-577/13) (IPKat). [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 8:33 am
Actavis LLC, 922 F.3d 1365, 1377–78 (Fed. [read post]
28 Nov 2021, 6:58 am
Final thoughtsThe judge's reasoning in Bayer v Teva resembles the approach taken by the UK Supreme Court in Actavis v ICOS. [read post]
27 Nov 2021, 2:24 am
With a focus on common law jurisdictions, the author considers issues in cases of online IP disputes, including the Actavis v Lilly case, a textbook case in private international law textbooks.Irene Calboli then discusses in Chapter 3 the classic research method of IP scholars – comparative legal analysis. [read post]
