Search for: "Cross et al v. Merck"
Results 1 - 20
of 26
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Aug 2011, 7:27 am
In Casey et al. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:16 am
(cross-petition asks for recourse on failure to dance) Antitrust Reverse Payments: GlaxoSmithKline, et al. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 11:19 am
Biogen et al. says:In light of our decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am
Post Grant Admin: Merck & Cie, et al. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2019, 12:00 pm
RATIOPHARM ET AL. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 8:39 am
Post Grant Admin: Merck & Cie, et al. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 6:46 pm
Post Grant Admin: Merck & Cie, et al. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 6:03 pm
Post Grant Admin: Merck & Cie, et al. v. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 4:00 am
Merck & Co. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 3:00 am
(Spicy IP) Malta: ‘They shall not pass’ – Maltese court hands down decision in a cross-border seizure case (regarding trade marked pharmaceuticals) against defendant (IPKat) Peru: PIIPA helps get to the root of maca biopiracy (IP tango) US: IP position critical to biotech investment (PatentlyBIOtech) US: Schering files for PTA calculation correction in respect of patent covering ‘Thrombin receptor antagonists’ (Patent Docs) US: Cellectis files patent… [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 9:19 pm
Merck (Kluwer Patent Blog) Keppra (Levetiracetam) – US: Orange Book patent listing precipitates DJ action to trigger generic Keppra XR 180-day exclusivity forfeiture: Par Pharmaceutical v UCB et al (FDA Law Blog) (Patent Docs) Naropin (Ropivacaine) – US: Judge O’Malley in dissent: Patent assignments should be a matter of state law: Abraxis BioScience v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 1:25 am
Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., et al. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 5:00 am
Merck (Vioxx) Trial2006-05-08 Doherty v. [read post]
23 May 2009, 11:26 am
There is also the serious risk of cross-contamination between raw meat and other food items intended to be eaten without cooking. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 2:33 am
Indeed, a principle and consistent criticism of the USDA E. coli O157:H7 policy is the fact that it has failed to focus on the risks of cross-contamination versus that posed by so-called improper cooking.[42] With this pathogen, there is ultimately no margin of error. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 6:52 am
Merck (Vioxx) Trial2006-05-08 Doherty v. [read post]
16 Aug 2015, 9:33 am
Indeed, a principle and consistent criticism of the USDA E. coli O157:H7 policy is the fact that it has failed to focus on the risks of cross-contamination versus that posed by so-called improper cooking.[33] With this pathogen, there is ultimately no real margin of error, and the cost of error can be death. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 11:55 am
Indeed, a principle and consistent criticism of the USDA E. coli O157:H7 policy is the fact that it has failed to focus on the risks of cross-contamination versus that posed by so-called improper cooking.[33] With this pathogen, there is ultimately no real margin of error, and the cost of error can be death. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 8:07 pm
”[29] As few as twenty organisms have been said to be sufficient to infect a person and, as a result, possibly kill them.[30] And unlike generic E. coli, the O157:H7 serotype multiplies at temperatures up to 44° Fahrenheit, survives freezing and thawing, is heat resistant, grows at temperatures up to 111° Fahrenheit, resists drying, and can survive exposure to acidic environments.[31] And, finally, to make it even more of a dangerous threat, E. coli O157:H7 bacteria are… [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 7:37 am
Indeed, a principle and consistent criticism of the USDA E. coli O157:H7 policy is the fact that it has failed to focus on the risks of cross-contamination versus that posed by so-called improper cooking.[42] With this pathogen, there is ultimately no margin of error. [read post]
