Search for: "CAMPAIGN/RESPONSIBLE v. FDA" Results 21 - 40 of 151
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Mar 2022, 12:50 am by Kristi L. Wolff and Jaclyn M. Metzinger
 For more resources on these campaigns, check out our commercial co-ventures resources. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 9:30 am by Guest Blogger
This post provides a brief update.On March 26, Food and Drug Administration v. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 8:34 am by Beck, et al.
We have no intention of wading into the treacherous (and heated) debate about Citizens United v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 5:04 pm by Marie Louise
Highlights this week included: Aricept (Donepezil HCI) – US: Lawsuit alleges false marking based on Orange Book ‘advertising’: Pharmaceutical Technologies v Eisai (FDA Law Blog) (Patent Docs) Please join the discussion by adding your comments on any of these stories, and please do let us know if you think we’ve missed something important, or if there is a source you think should be monitored. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 6:15 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Plaintiffs can respond to claims that modified risk products are unhealthy “if and when the veracity of the health claims they make in response have been demonstrated. [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
A visceral response along the lines of, "oh, yeah - watch me," is something we've seen a lot in preemption cases. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 6:38 am
Last week, the Court handed Riegel v Medtronic, 128 S. [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 5:00 am by Vincent Joralemon
  In response, policymakers will need to continue to conduct balanced cost-benefit analyses based on the spectrum of public influence campaigns: If companies with a vested interest want to lobby for a particular rule extension, they should do so. [read post]
30 May 2017, 8:30 am by Josh Blackman
This post is the third part of a four-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 4:56 am by Marie Louise
(Patent Docs) Strattera (Atomoxetine)- US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Eli Lilly & Co. v. [read post]