Search for: "LJS, Inc."
Results 1 - 20
of 171
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2020, 11:46 pm
by Olivia Henry and Nicholas Michelmore On 20 April 2020, Arnold LJ (sitting as a High Court Judge) gave judgment in the case between FibroGen Inc and Astellas Pharma Inc (together the “Claimants”), and Akebia Therapeutics Inc and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company Limited (together the “Defendants”) which concerned six patents owned by FibroGen and exclusively licensed to Astellas (the “Patents”). [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 2:00 pm
(ljs) [read post]
8 Sep 2021, 7:50 am
In undoubtedly one of the most important decisions of the year so far, on 24 August 2021, the English Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in FibroGen v Akebia (FibroGen Inc v Akebia Therapeutics Inc [2021] EWCA Civ 1279), partially allowing FibroGen’s appeal, and so finding one of the ‘Family A’ patents, EP 823, valid and infringed. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 5:29 am
LiveJournal Inc., No. 14-56596 (9th Cir. [read post]
22 Feb 2013, 3:59 am
Kitchin LJ giving the leading judgment, with which Moses LJ and Longmore LJ agreed in the traditional formula, analysed each criticism of the judge's findings, and in each case upheld the first instance judgment. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 2:20 am
In what should come as a welcome decision for brand owners, the Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Oracle America Inc (formerly Sun Microsystems Inc) v M-Tech Data Ltd unanimously overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal, and restoring the first instance order of Kitchin J. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 11:00 pm
In NuVasive, Inc. v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 3:36 am
Arden LJ also disagreed with Kitchin J’s position on the defence under article 81 of the EC Treaty. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 1:47 pm
In the Matter of Texas Eastern Overseas Inc., C.A. 4326-VCN (November 30, 2009) This decision answers the question of whether it is possible to have a receiver appointed for a dissolved Delaware corporation more than 3 years after it is dissolved. [read post]
1 Jun 2019, 9:15 am
" – Lewison LJ, in HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 451 [143]. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 1:35 am
In Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly and Company [2010] EWCA Civ 33, all of these questions had to be considered before evaluating the validity of a patent owned by Human Genome Sciences (“HGS”). [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm
The Court of Appeal decision in Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311(27 March 2015) (Dyson MR and Sharp LJ in a joint judgment; McFarlane LJ concurring), affirming the judgment of Tugendhat J (at[2014] EWHC 13 (QB) (16 January 2014)), is a very important decision on damages for invasion of privacy, and it raises significant questions about the correctness of Feeney J’s reasoning in the earlier Irish case of Collins v FBD Insurance plc [2013] IEHC 137 (14 March… [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 2:25 am
On this point, Kitchin LJ relied upon Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1339. [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 5:18 am
In Pfizer, Birss LJ declined to give a declaration because there were not any UK rights. [read post]
7 Jun 2017, 8:54 am
Curt G Joa, Inc. [read post]
24 Feb 2021, 12:38 am
At first instance, the Administrative Court (Gross LJ and Ouseley J) rejected KBR, Inc’s challenge. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 2:46 am
On Friday, Floyd LJ gave the leading judgment (with which Patten and Tomlinson LJJ agreed) in JW Spear & Sons Ltd & Others v Zynga Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 290. [read post]
2 Feb 2008, 12:17 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2008, 3:40 am
, IPBiz, Mar. 6, 2006, http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/03/ntprim-settlement-to-lead-to-patent.html (discussing a settlement of patent infringement litigation for $ 612 million between NTP, Inc. - the patent holder - and Research in Motion - maker of the Blackberry(R) - notwithstanding that the patents had been subjected to reexamination proceedings and were initially rejected therein by the Patent Office). [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:30 am
Actually, Mr Justice Arnold had himself moved away from the idea already - he distinguished his decision in the later case of Idenix Pharmaceutical, Inc v Gilead Sciences, Inc (reported by IPKat here) in which he declined to construe a claim narrowly on the basis of the prosecution history.This did not however have any effect on the outcome - Floyd LJ otherwise endorsed Arnold J's application of the Protocol questions to likewise find that there was no direct… [read post]
