Search for: "BENEFIT v. PFIZER, INC."
Results 21 - 40
of 201
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2007, 6:00 am
In Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:04 pm
City of New London Supreme Court case, involving the taking of Susette Kelo's (and others') property for a development benefiting Pfizer, Inc.While I was generally familiar with the case, and even heard Justice Antonin Scalia speak about it shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its controversial decision (see August 30 and September 2, 2005, posts), Benedict's hard investigatory work and clear prose explicated the remarkable milieu in which this case arose,… [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 3:47 pm
Pfizer, Inc., 825 F. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 9:33 am
Pfizer Inc., 1:07-CV-11426, U.S. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 5:35 pm
").CaseBRISTOL~MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY and PFIZER INC v, Mylan ["MPI"], 2017 U.S. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 4:12 pm
Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 042-01946-02 (Mo. [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 3:10 pm
Pfizer Inc., No. 754 EDA 2009, 2010 Pa. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 4:30 am
Pfizer, Inc., 381 F. [read post]
25 May 2012, 9:25 am
Benefits Ins. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 6:04 am
Pfizer Inc., Civ. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 11:54 am
You may remember Kelo v. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 4:23 am
Pfizer, Inc., Docket Nos. 05-4863-cv (L), 05-6768-cv (CON), slip op. (2d Cir. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 8:36 am
Why would a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) voluntarily agree to place Horizon’s drugs Krystexxa and Tepezza in a preferred section of the formulary and exclude the benefits of competition for those products if it did not receive rebates that fully offset those losses? [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 11:09 am
Pfizer, Inc., (S.D. [read post]
24 Mar 2021, 2:32 pm
” Pfizer, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 5:00 am
Pfizer, Inc., 381 F. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 4:00 am
Camco Inc. (1997), 72 C.P.R. (3d) 444 (F.C.T.D.)). [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 5:00 am
Pfizer Inc., 58 A.D.3d 138, 141 (N.Y. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 8:36 am
Why would a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) voluntarily agree to place Horizon’s drugs Krystexxa and Tepezza in a preferred section of the formulary and exclude the benefits of competition for those products if it did not receive rebates that fully offset those losses? [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 2:16 am
Patent Docs has an interesting post on the relevance of 35 USC 121 (which immunizes divisionals against obviousness-typedouble patenting rejections) to the Mircera matter between Amgen and Hoffman:The Federal Circuit's decision in Pfizer, Inc. v. [read post]
