Search for: "F/V ENDEAVOUR INC"
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2016, 12:19 am
Always a fan of a case management decision, the AmeriKat was interested to see the decision in Celltrion Inc. v Biogen Idec Inc., F. [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 2:39 pm
Co., Inc., 102 F.3d 223, 226 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Nogueroas v. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 1:56 am
The Court relied on McDermott International Inc v Burn Standard Co., where the Supreme Court held: “the 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 4:00 am
The features of musical culture and the ubiquity of musical borrowing reveal a dramatic divergence between the shared norms and practices of music culture and a doctrinal copyright approach.[16] Hence, there is something to be said about music as a unique category within copyright, both deserving and in need of special consideration. _____________________________________ 2 Théberge v Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain Inc, 2002 SCC 34 at para 30. 3 CCH Canadian… [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 5:15 am
IPAB rejects Novartis’ patent application for Glivec (Intellectual Property Watch) Lescol (Fluvastatin) – Netherlands: No interim relief pending appeal against invalidity, rules District Court of The Hague: Novartis v Mylan and Actavis (PatLit) Levaquin (Levoflaxacin) – Canada: FCA holds generics raising allegations similar to those of previous generics allowed their day in court: Apotex v Janssen-Ortho (Global IP Watch) Lexapro (Escitalopram)… [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 7:54 am
Random House, Inc. [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 1:12 am
Inghams sought to restrain the referral to arbitration and failed at first instance; see Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Hannigan [2019] NSWSC 1186. [read post]
2 Jun 2012, 12:12 pm
Replicating beer entails a process not only skilful but also cumbersome and expensive, which tends to restrict such not-for-profit endeavours to "small beer", literally. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 1:23 am
The patent in suit was revoked after opposition proceedings instituted by Novartis AG ("opponent 1", later "respondent I") and F. [read post]
