Search for: "Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc."
Results 181 - 200
of 247
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 2006 WL 3665417, at *4 n.2 (S.D. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:54 pm
We would all go down together!! [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 12:15 am
Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 11:43 pm
Apotex, Inc., 540 F.3d 1353 (Fed. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 4:31 pm
By Jason RantanenTeva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 3:50 am
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2181 (Phila. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
Pfizer Inc., 1991 WL 540731 (C.D. [read post]
25 May 2010, 7:54 am
” As a result, “Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical LLC will pay a $6.14 million criminal fine after pleading guilty…to one count of misdemeanor violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for promoting Topamax for unproved uses,” while “its holding company, Titusville, NJ-based Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., will pay $75.37 million to resolve civil allegations under the False Claims Act. [read post]
18 May 2010, 7:03 pm
A recent $81 million settlehttp://www.jefflowepc.com/lawyer-attorney-1176136.htmlment between the Department of Justice and Johnson & Johnson's Ortho-McNeil Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. means sales reps for the company will be monitored with compliance officers who will observe and report on the representatives' behavior on the job. [read post]
13 May 2010, 4:57 pm
Two subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical LLC and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., have agreed to pay more than $81 million to settle allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by illegally promoting the epilepsy drug, Topomax. [read post]
13 May 2010, 12:27 pm
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 288 Fed. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 1:26 pm
The settlement arose from two whistleblower cases filed under federal and state False Claims Acts, alleging that Otho-McNeil Pharmaceutical LLC and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., improperly marketed Topamax for psychiatric uses, when it was only FDA-approved to treat epilepsy. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 1:26 pm
The settlement arose from two whistleblower cases filed under federal and state False Claims Acts, alleging that Otho-McNeil Pharmaceutical LLC and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., improperly marketed Topamax for psychiatric uses, when it was only FDA-approved to treat epilepsy. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 2:06 am
“The Corporate Integrity Agreement requires Ortho-McNeil-Janssen-Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to increase transparency and accountability and to make changes designed to avoid illegal drug promotion in the future. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 5:22 am
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 5:22 am
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:05 am
(IP Osgoode) Australia: University of Western Australia’s application to appeal FCAFC’s decision in University of Western Australia v Gray fails (IP Whiteboard) Colombia/EU/Peru: Tough IP health provisions in Europe’s Colombia/Peru trade deal (IP Watch) (IP tango) EU: Something more about Swiss type claims: G02/08 (SiNApSE) (SiNApSE) US: Pharmaceutical patent settlements – and what about patients? [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:05 am
(IP Osgoode) Australia: University of Western Australia’s application to appeal FCAFC’s decision in University of Western Australia v Gray fails (IP Whiteboard) Colombia/EU/Peru: Tough IP health provisions in Europe’s Colombia/Peru trade deal (IP Watch) (IP tango) EU: Something more about Swiss type claims: G02/08 (SiNApSE) (SiNApSE) US: Pharmaceutical patent settlements – and what about patients? [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 9:01 pm
By Suresh Pillai -- Lupin Claims Tri-Cyclen® Patent Invalid Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. has filed counterclaims in its suit with Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., alleging that Ortho's patent covering its Tri-Cyclen® Lo contraceptive, U.S. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 8:00 am
(patent infringement) 1/8: Alza Corporation and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. [read post]
