Search for: "ASTRAZENECA LP V APOTEX"
Results 1 - 20
of 35
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2012, 3:43 pm
LP v. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 1:00 am
By Jason Rantanen In an earlier post, I summarized the Federal Circuit's affirmance of a preliminary injunction prohibiting Apotex from marketing its generic version of AstraZeneca's budesonide in AstraZeneca LP v. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 2:39 pm
AstraZeneca LP v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 10:59 am
By Jason Rantanen AstraZeneca LP v. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 1:00 am
In AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 1:47 pm
LP. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2008, 9:47 pm
Apotex Inc. v. [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 9:14 pm
The panel also affirmed the District Court's dismissal of invalidity counterclaims brought by Defendants-Cross Appellants Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp., and the lower court's decisions regarding the bond amount. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 5:43 pm
” AstraZeneca LP v. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 1:40 am
AstraZeneca v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 7:49 am
The Court reasoned that (1) like the generic in AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 12:44 am
"AstraZeneca LP v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 9:53 pm
LP v. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 7:44 am
” See also AstraZeneca LP v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 11:32 am
Judge Stark cited the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 10:36 am
McGrath In its recent decision in AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. [read post]
11 Nov 2017, 11:00 am
See AstraZeneca LP v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 12:37 am
Osmotica Pharmaceutical Corp (Patent Docs) Seroquel (Quetiapine) – US: Patent infringement suit filed following Para IV certification: Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 12:15 am
Navinta LLC (Property, intangible) Pulmicort Respules (Budesonide) – US: Liability for future indirect infringement: AstraZeneca LP v. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 7:39 am
The particular claims require “a continuous long term regimen . . . at a dosage up to 1.5 mg/kg/day for not less than 45 days” for treating “an individual with … penile tunical fibrosis …” On anticipation, the court drew a fine-line with its closest case being AstraZeneca LP v. [read post]