Search for: "Bartlett Manufacturing Co., Inc."
Results 1 - 20
of 110
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2012, 9:48 am
Mutual Phamaceutical Co., Inc. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 3:47 pm
Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 852 F. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 10:16 am
Bartlett, and the message is that the Justices saw this case as essentially a replay of last year’s decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 12:50 pm
The Bartlett majority pointed out that the manufacturer of anydrug, “whether generic or brand-name,” can’t make material post-approval changes to its design without prior FDA approval. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 8:30 pm
A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled (5-4) today in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 7:28 am
Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 659 F. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 2:00 pm
. is preempted under Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 8:10 am
Co. v. [read post]
7 May 2012, 5:00 am
Eli Lilly & Co., 489 F. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 2:38 pm
Bartlett, 133 S. [read post]
25 Dec 2012, 1:54 pm
Bartlett (PDF) Pilva Inc. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 8:03 am
Mutual Pharmaceutucal Co., 659 F. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
See, e.g., Buckman Co. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 9:17 am
Eli Lilly & Co., 66 Fed. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 3:42 pm
§ 337(a); see Buckman Co. v. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 10:56 am
This principle could certainly apply to innovator manufacturers as well in circumstances where the manufacturer could not make the proposed changes without government assistance.Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2015, 8:53 am
We’ve been advocating preemption of all product liability design defect claims against prescription drug manufacturers – “whether generic or brand name” – since we read that phrase in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 9:02 am
The lawsuit itself, Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 10:17 am
Co., 760 F. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:07 am
Bartlett, 133 S. [read post]
