Search for: "ACTAVIS"
Results 81 - 100
of 1,004
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Feb 2020, 9:03 am
Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., with Judges Newman, O’Malley, Stoll and Lourie dissenting. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 8:21 am
Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. [read post]
7 Feb 2020, 12:43 am
Topics will include, amongst others: the implications of non-obviousness for follow-on medical innovation (e.g. drug repurposing) after the UK Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Actavis v ICOS; the current and future roles of competition law in controlling drug prices, including an update on Flynn and Pfizer; and the potential effect of Brexit on the trade of medical products. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 12:04 am
Topics will include, amongst others: the implications of non-obviousness for follow-on medical innovation (e.g. drug repurposing) after the UK Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Actavis v ICOS; the current and future roles of competition law in controlling drug prices, including an update on Flynn and Pfizer; and the potential effect of Brexit on the trade of medical products. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 7:26 am
The main course – Supreme Court cases (7) Obvious to try In the case Actavis v ICOS [2019] UKSC 15, the UK Supreme Court reviewed the approach to obvious to try. [read post]
24 Dec 2019, 6:00 am
” The DEA database “attributes the vast majority of the 76 billion opioid pills produced and shipped from 2006 through 2012 to three companies that are now controlled by large multinational drugmakers: SpecGx, a subsidiary of Ireland-based Mallinckrodt; Par Pharmaceutical, owned by Endo Pharmaceuticals, also in Ireland; and Actavis, part of Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 2:15 pm
The pharmaceutical industry presents some of the most important and challenging issues lying at the intersection of the patent and antitrust laws. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 2:15 pm
Actavis, the Supreme Court held that agreements by which brand-name drug companies pay generics to settle patent litigation and delay entering the market could have “significant anticompetitive effects” and violate the antitrust laws. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
In his reference, the Judge trotted through the English court's and CJEU's case law Article 3(a) - Takeda, Farmitalia, Daiichi, Yeda, Medeva (and its progeny), Actavis v Sanofi, Eli Lilly v HGS, Actavis v Boehringer, - and found that it was clear that something more was required, but what that "something" was was not clear. [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 8:15 am
Actavis Elizabeth LLC et al., Civil Action No. 17-205-CFC (D.Del. [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 8:15 am
Actavis Elizabeth LLC et al., Civil Action No. 17-205-CFC (D.Del. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 7:57 am
Having accepted that the 2017 bag did not fall within the “normal interpretation” of the claims (as required by Actavis), Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke applied the reformulated Improver questions, as outlined by Lord Neuberger in Actavis. 1. [read post]
27 Nov 2019, 7:38 am
Sara MoranThe Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was entitled to treat the judge’s failure to appreciate the logical consequence of a particular finding as an error of principle which allowed an appellate court to carry out its own evaluation. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 12:01 am
Speakers will touch upon a variety of developments in the UK and across Europe, including the doctrine of equivalents following Actavis v Lilly, plausibility and requirements for data in patent applications and recent developments in relation to injunctions, as well as providing an update on case law from the EPO. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 4:24 am
In recent lawsuits, the defendants have included McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen, Purdue Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Endo International, Teva Pharmaceutical, Allergan (formerly Actavis), Watson Pharmaceuticals, Covidien, Johnson & Johnson, CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid. [read post]
16 Oct 2019, 9:59 pm
Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 2:15 pm
Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. affirming the U.S. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 2:15 pm
Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. affirming the U.S. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 11:12 am
She discusses the two tests adopted by the CJEU, namely that the product must be 'specified' or‘identified' in the claims of the basic patent (Medeva, C-322/10), and that the product must reflect 'the core inventive advance' of the basic patent (Actavis v Sanofi, 443/12). [read post]
22 Sep 2019, 11:48 pm
The only matter on which there appears to be consensus is that the CJEU has rejected the so called “infringement” test: this means that in order to satisfy the “protected by a basic patent in force requirement”, it is not sufficient for the product to simply fall within the scope of a claim of the basic patent.During the past few years, landmark decisions concerning the interpretation of the SPC Regulation have introduced two different tests, namely that the product must be… [read post]
