Search for: "Andrx Corp."
Results 1 - 20
of 43
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2010, 9:25 pm
By Andrew Williams -- Last week, in ALZA Corp. v. [read post]
31 May 2015, 9:59 pm
.; Andrx Corp.; Actavis Inc.; Actavis Pharma Inc. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 9:26 pm
ALZA Corp. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2014, 9:14 pm
.; Andrx Corp.; Actavis Inc.; Actavis Pharma Inc. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 2:47 pm
Biovail Corp., Nos. 05-7066, 05-7069, 06-7118, 2008 WL 2853281 (D.C. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 11:03 am
Andrx Corp., the Federal Circuit added some needed clarity to the concept of the “presumption of validity” in patent law, and did so in a way that may be helpful to accused infringers who are arguing that the prior art (technology already disclosed in a patent or in the public domain) renders a patent invalid. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 10:00 pm
’” ALZA Corp. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2007, 4:18 pm
" Id.; Schering Corp. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2007, 1:18 am
" Id.; Schering Corp. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 5:59 am
The case of Alza Corp v. [read post]
16 Oct 2006, 7:58 pm
Alza had also sued Andrx over its own ANDA, but the Stipulated Order dismissing the suit did not mention the case against Andrx. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 7:26 am
Quest Corp., Appeal No. 2010-1110 (Fed. [read post]
23 Apr 2007, 4:43 pm
In today's decision, Judge Rader (writing for himself and Judge Bryson) concluded that a Korean patent application to Chong Kun Dan Corp. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 2:42 pm
Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 711 (3d Cir. 2004), the Court concluded that AstraZeneca had carried its burden to prove that it would likely succeed on the merits of the case, that it would likely suffer “irreparable harm” if the requested relief was not granted, and that the balance of hardships and the public interest weigh in its favor. [read post]
21 Nov 2015, 5:54 am
Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 711 (3d Cir. 2004), the Court concluded that AstraZeneca had carried its burden to prove that it would likely succeed on the merits of the case pursuant to the Lapp factors analysis, that it would likely suffer “irreparable harm” if the requested relief was not granted, and that the balance of hardships and the public interest weigh in its favor. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 11:22 pm
Last week we put In re Mentor Corp. [read post]
12 May 2018, 2:58 pm
Andrx Pharm. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 9:09 am
MagSil Corp. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 12:26 pm
See Andrx Pharms., Inc. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 2:01 pm
Cir. 2007); AK Steel Corp. v. [read post]
