Search for: "In re: Smith & Nephew Inc." Results 101 - 120 of 132
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2009, 7:44 pm
(IP finance) Gospel, gold diggers and gum trees: How sampling litigation changes the tune (IP Osgoode)   Australia A mere collocation - Full Federal Court allows appeal against grant of interlocutory injunction preventing Smith & Nephew entering negative pressure wound therapy market: Smith & Nephew P/L v Wake Forest University Health Sciences (ipwars.com) The Vegemite/iSnack trade mark saga down under: Fiasco or triumph? [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 7:44 pm
(IP finance) Gospel, gold diggers and gum trees: How sampling litigation changes the tune (IP Osgoode) Australia A mere collocation - Full Federal Court allows appeal against grant of interlocutory injunction preventing Smith & Nephew entering negative pressure wound therapy market: Smith & Nephew P/L v Wake Forest University Health Sciences (ipwars.com) The Vegemite/iSnack trade mark saga down under: Fiasco or triumph? [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 7:44 pm
(IP finance) Gospel, gold diggers and gum trees: How sampling litigation changes the tune (IP Osgoode)   Australia A mere collocation - Full Federal Court allows appeal against grant of interlocutory injunction preventing Smith & Nephew entering negative pressure wound therapy market: Smith & Nephew P/L v Wake Forest University Health Sciences (ipwars.com) The Vegemite/iSnack trade mark saga down under: Fiasco or triumph? [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 12:49 pm
Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 763 N.E.2d 160 (Ohio 2002). [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 5:25 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: New USPTO procedures likely to delay action in requests for continued examination of patent applications (IP Spotlight) (Patently-O) (Inventive Step) 12 Republican Senators send letter to Senate Majority Leader re concerns about post-grant review provisions in S.515 (Inventive Step) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) Questions on acquiescence… [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 5:25 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: New USPTO procedures likely to delay action in requests for continued examination of patent applications (IP Spotlight) (Patently-O) (Inventive Step) 12 Republican Senators send letter to Senate Majority Leader re concerns about post-grant review provisions in S.515 (Inventive Step) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) Questions on acquiescence… [read post]
20 Dec 2008, 3:00 am
gain upper hand in Blu-ray DRM battle (Ars Technica)   Africa South African Times report on state of African music, lack of support and protection (Afro-IP)   Australia Australian Copyright Tribunal: consumer valuation of copyright: Audio-Visual Copyright Society (t/a Screenrights) v Foxtel and Re PPCA (IPKat) (IP finance) Innovation patents in Australia. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
- Amsterdam Court of Appeal rules in favour of Hachette Filipacchi Press, publisher of Elle magazine, in trade name/trade mark infringement litigation brought by clothing company WE Netherlands (Class 46)   Poland District Administrative Court in Warsaw: ALDO S and ALDI not similar (Class 46)   South Africa More on the Springbok emblem (Afro-IP)   Sweden Appeal Court rules on reproduction of album cover artwork in case against Åhléns (International… [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 12:36 pm
******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE Never too late 52 [week ending on Sunday 14 June] - EU TM reform | Motivate Publishing FZ LLC and another v Hello Ltd | EPO’s Inventor of the Year: poll results | New network for new IP people | Delfi v Estonia | UPC fees | Smith & Nephew Plc v ConvaTec Technologies Inc | Canary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade… [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 5:11 am by Beck/Herrmann
Citing another Bone Screw case (if the defendant was Sofamor, Danek, Smith Nephew, or Acromed, and the date is between 1995 and 2001 - chances are its a Bone Screw case), the court goes on to recognize that only "substantive violations" (your product didn't conform to the intended design) rather than "administrative violations" (failure to go through FDA procedures properly) could qualify as negligence per se under state law: [S]ince such… [read post]