Search for: "Fields v. Eli Lilly & Company" Results 1 - 20 of 56
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2024, 4:35 pm companies/ Rhinos cont'd. [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 5:00 am by Timothy Bonis
Major industry players filed amici briefs on both sides, AbbVie, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Merck supporting Amgen, and Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and AstraZeneca supporting Sanofi. [read post]
17 May 2021, 12:45 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
  Unjust enrichment of pharmaceutical company towards health insurerMenzis / AstraZeneca, District Court of The Hague 14 October 2020 (Judge Knijff, Brinkman and Aalbers) [Dutch decision here]The second half of 2020 brought a remarkable decision in a case between health insurance company Menzis and pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 9:16 am by Matthieu Dhenne (Ipsilon)
This time the action brought by Eli Lilly on French territory concerns the same drug but is directed against another generic commercialized by Zentiva. [read post]
29 Jan 2021, 7:20 am by Nicolas Round (Bristows)
ii) That leads one in turn to consider what the established field which existed was, in which the problem in fact can be located. iii) It is the notional person or team in that established field which is the relevant team making up the person skilled in the art. [read post]
Three zones of protection have thus been identified: the direct object of the invention (strict field and rejection of equivalents); the object of the invention (median field with obvious equivalents); the inventive idea (extended field with non-obvious equivalents) [5]. [read post]
24 Aug 2020, 12:00 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
In general, proceedings in the field of mechanical engineering will be classified as “regular” and proceedings in the field of pharmaceuticals as “complex”. [read post]
5 Jul 2020, 5:43 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
 A number of companies which own existing state of the art technology in this field are making their designs, drawings and instructions freely available and then well-known manufacturing companies are using parts and materials available in the UK supply chain to replicate the designs and increase the available production. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 4:00 am by Martin Kratz
Pfizer Canada ULC, 2020 FC 1, at para. 42. [3] See Sections 27(3)(b) and 28.3 of the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4 [4] Burton Parsons Chemicals, Inc v Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd, [1976] 1 SCR 555 at 563 [5] Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc, 2008 SCC 61 at paragraph 37, [2008] 3 SCR 265; see also Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée v Eurocopter, société par actions simplifiée, 2013 FCA 219 at paragraph 65; Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC… [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
  In his reference, the Judge trotted through the English court's and CJEU's case law Article 3(a) - Takeda, Farmitalia, Daiichi, Yeda, Medeva (and its progeny), Actavis v Sanofi, Eli Lilly v HGS, Actavis v Boehringer, - and found that it was clear that something more was required, but what that "something" was was not clear. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 5:50 am
 First panel discussion: Pros and Cons of Different Patent Litigation Systems in Europe The first panel was composed of Ivan Burnside (Eli Lilly), George Moore (Mylan) and Clemens Heusch (Nokia) giving their personal in-house counsel perspectives on different patent litigation systems based on their experience with parallel cases in many European jurisdictions.One of the key points to emerge from this discussion was that judges must be educated by appropriate experts in the… [read post]
17 May 2018, 1:36 pm
Having presided over major decisions impacting both on IP law and practice, not the least Actavis v Eli Lilly, Baron Neuberger will be sharing his insights and reflections on “IP in the UK and Europe – a view from the top”. [read post]
14 May 2018, 12:30 pm
  Birss would not be drawn on his views of the Supreme Court's decision in Eli Lilly v Actavis (see the IPKat here - the 109 comments on the post is a good indication of how controversial this decision has been). [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 2:57 am
 The UCL debate on the UK Supreme Court decision Actavis v Eli Lilly ("Equivalents: K = Na. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 12:05 am
Limited and others v Yeda Research and Development Company Limited and others [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat) - the first application of Actavis v Eli Lilly in the Patents Court. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 6:09 pm
The panel members were Mattias Zigann, the presiding judge of the Munich Regional Court, Philip Kerr of Allens Linklaters and Larry Welch, the Senior Director, and Assistant General Patent Counsel at Eli Lilly and Company.Mr Ludwig explained that the question of what relief was appropriate had been highlighted by the very recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in AMGEN INC & ors v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 3:01 pm
  Collective and collective activities are at the center of this field. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 12:44 am by John Collins
The judge held that the “undue burden” concept in English law (particularly as outlined by Arnold J in Eli Lilly v Janssen in 2014) was not particularly helpful under Australian law. [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 12:30 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
 Peter Yu, The Investment-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights:  Eli Lilly’s $500 million complaint against Canadian gov’t; challenges against plain packaging by tobacco companies. [read post]