Search for: "Lilly v. Ring"
Results 1 - 20
of 26
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Dec 2006, 10:56 pm
Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 7:24 pm
This low threshold, in the context of industrial applicability, was supported by the Supreme Court in HGS v Lilly [2011] UKSC 51 where “plausible” was used alongside “educated guess” and “reasonably credible”. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 3:01 pm
[and] [b]ringing this action was nothing more than a perpetuation of the conspiracy. [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]
12 Oct 2010, 8:56 pm
Apotex asks Supreme Court to review generic Cozaar/Hyzaar 180-day exclusivity decision (FDA Law Blog) Faslodex (Fulvestrant) – US: AstraZeneca seeks review of BPAI decision concerning patent covering ‘Use of Fulvestrant in treatment of resistant breast cancer’ (Patent Docs) Gemzar (Gemcitabine) – US: Eli Lilly files patent infringement complaint against Dr Reddy’s following Para IV certification (Patent Docs) Lipitor (Atorvastatin) – US: Generic LIPITOR… [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 11:04 am
With the ink barely dry on the Supreme Court’s recent decision that pharmaceutical detailing is First Amendment protected commercial speech, see Sorrell v. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 10:10 am
Word Mark Click To View 5595803 PHA DIRECT TSDR 5595602 MAKE IT RING TSDR 5595492 IVYCOVE TSDR 5597611 TRAINMATE TSDR 5595083 GROTE GUARDIAN TSDR 5594998 TSDR 5594558 B TSDR 5594228 RELATE CAPTIVATE CULTIVATE RESONATE TSDR 5594227 L & D MAIL MASTERS TSDR 5594224 MID·WEST M.C. [read post]
18 May 2011, 12:33 am
Highlights this week included: US: FTC alleges companies were asleep at the wheel when they failed to report settlement agreements on Ambien CR; Commission uses the opportunity to provide industry guidance – and a warning (FDA Law Blog) (GenericsWeb) Gemzar (Gemcitabine) – US: Certiorari denied in Eli Lilly v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 6:55 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 10:18 pm
Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568. [read post]
4 May 2011, 4:13 am
(Patent Law Practice Center) US: Abraxis files for patent term adjustment calculation review for patent entitled ‘Compositions and methods of delivery of pharmacological agents’ (Patent Docs) US: ITC: Target date set in Certain Vaginal Ring Birth Control Devices (ITC 337 Law Blog) US: Court confused by patent reexamination results: Cellectricon v Fluxion Biosciences (Patents Post-Grant) Products AndroGel (Testosterone) – US: Abbott sues Teva in attempt to block US… [read post]
12 Aug 2009, 8:09 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: Yasmin (Drospirenone) – US: CAFC affirms invalidity of Yasmin patent on the grounds of obviousness: Bayer Schering v Barr Labs (Orange Book Blog) (Patent Baristas) (Patent Docs) (SmartBrief) India warns on generic drugs seizure (GenericsWeb) (PatentBIOtech) General Alnylam to donate RNAi patents to patent pool… [read post]
16 Apr 2022, 2:49 pm
Eli Lilly & Co., 8 F.4th 1349 (Fed. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 10:28 am
Nichols certainly rings true. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
Eli Lilly & Co., 696 N.E.2d 187 (Ohio 1998)) and a gun case in New York (Hamilton v. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 11:56 am
Allen, Ethan Hazelton, Douglas V. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 12:54 pm
Eli Lilly & Co., 620 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2010). [read post]
1 May 2008, 11:21 am
The third ring of the circus was thus opened.At this point Congress stepped in. [read post]
2 Aug 2008, 12:54 am
: (Holman’s Biotech IP Blog), Daiichi’s open offer for 20% in Ranbaxy awaits Sebi nod: (GenericsWeb), Australia/India: Strides shows thumbs up for Indian generic industry acquiring controlling interest in Ascent: (Spicy IP), Europe: Significant date ahead for EU Paediatric Regulation: (SPC Blog), India: Grave diggers, ‘immoral’ patent and the National Biotech Regulatory Authority: (Spicy IP), UK: Monster trade mark infringement case: court reveals its thinking… [read post]
21 Jan 2007, 5:42 pm
We have not seen, in any of the Court’s recent opinions, discussion of patents as “monopolies,” along the lines of Justice Douglas’ concurrence in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. [read post]
