Search for: "ACTAVIS"
Results 141 - 160
of 1,004
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2019, 3:24 am
On appeal from: [2017] EWCA Civ 1671 This appeal considered what the correct test is for obviousness in the context of assessing the validity of a pharmaceutical patent. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 2:00 am
Actavis Group PTC EHF & Ors v ICOS Corporation & Anor, heard 19-20 Nov 2018. [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 3:26 pm
” Andrea Rossi reflects on when Pringles, drunk cart drivers, wine, art, and trade mark law come into contact.PatentsGuestKat Rose Hughes takes a look at the recent application of the Actavis case in the High Court case Regen Lab v Estar [2019] EWHC 63, where the Actavis questions were applied to a numerical value for the first time.InternKat Jonathan Pratt also looks at the application of Actavis in "Formstein defence in the UK? [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 2:00 am
Actavis Group PTC EHF & Ors v ICOS Corporation & Anor, heard 19-20 Nov 2018. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 10:07 am
" (see [227]-[228])Inventive problems, obvious solutions After a trot through the case law on "perception of the problem" (including Actavis v Novartis [2010] FSR 18, Haberman v Jackel International [1999] FSR 683 and the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal), Mr Justice Carr recognized it was possible to have a case where the invention was the identification or perception of the problem (even if the solution was obvious). [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 2:00 am
Actavis Group PTC EHF & Ors v ICOS Corporation & Anor, heard 19-20 Nov 2018. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 7:59 am
The event blurb reads:"Jurisdictional issues have increasingly come to the fore in IP disputes in recent years, from Lucasfilm v Ainsworth and Actavis v Eli Lilly to FRAND disputes such as Unwired Planet v Huawei, Apple v Qualcommand Conversant v Huawei & ZTE, as parties clash on forum-shopping and attempts to reach one-stop resolution of their IP disputes. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 1:00 am
Actavis Group PTC EHF & Ors v ICOS Corporation & Anor, heard 19-20 Nov 2018. [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 5:47 am
Notably, Mr Justice Arnold considered the principles of insufficiency established by Warner-Lambert v Actavis applicable, even though the use of the antibody to treat psoriasis was a first medical use. [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 6:00 am
Actavis, Inc., 746 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 8:06 am
This year's paper was arguably made even more challenging by the introduction on the syllabus for the first time of the principles of the doctrine of equivalents as established by Lord Neuberger in Actavis v Eli Lilly (which even UK judges are still working out how to apply...). [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 1:00 am
Actavis Group PTC EHF & Ors v ICOS Corporation & Anor, heard 19-20 Nov 2018. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 7:58 am
Rolls Building Author: Basher EyreLicence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Source Wikipedia Rolls Building Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Technetix BV and others v Teleste Ltd [2019] EWHC 126 (IPEC) (29 Jan 2019) This is another case in which HH Judge Hacon applied the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Actavis UK Ltd and [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 1:00 am
Actavis Group PTC EHF & Ors v ICOS Corporation & Anor, heard 19-20 Nov 2018. [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 1:00 am
Actavis Group PTC EHF & Ors v ICOS Corporation & Anor, heard 19-20 Nov 2018. [read post]
9 Feb 2019, 2:13 am
| The IP term (thus far) of the millennium: the curious story of the adoption of "patent troll" and "internet trolling" | No pain, no gain: Plausibility in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Is SPINNING generic? [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 6:12 am
| The IP term (thus far) of the millennium: the curious story of the adoption of "patent troll" and "internet trolling" | No pain, no gain: Plausibility in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Is SPINNING generic? [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 4:27 am
In particular, it was not clear how this defence applied when considering equivalents following Actavis. [read post]
5 Feb 2019, 9:59 pm
They also found that even if the claims had been found valid, they would not have been infringed by Actavis and Mylan's activities, and that the post-trial amendment to try to limit the... [read post]
5 Feb 2019, 1:19 am
Based on the Pemetrexed-decision of the German Federal Supreme Court (docket-no X ZR 29/15, also known as Actavis v Eli Lilly), the Court of Appeal made it clear that Swiss-type claims are to be treated in the same way as so-called EPC 2000-claims. [read post]
