Search for: "Lilly v. Lilly (1982)"
Results 1 - 20
of 42
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Oct 2020, 2:49 am
Joining the majority of European courts, the Paris Court of Justice ruled that Eli Lilly’s patent, which relates to the combined administration of pemetrexed disodium and vitamin B12, was infringed by the marketing of Fresenius’ pemetrexed diacid. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 7:30 pm
Such was the story in Actavis v Lilly. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 6:54 am
Law Lessons from Lilly Buie and Antwan Moses v. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 1:34 pm
It is here - the Supreme Court's decision in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK [2017] UKSC 48. [read post]
10 May 2018, 11:12 pm
Hill & Smith [1982] RPC 183; Improver Corporation v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 6:55 am
The outcome can be contrasted with the Actavis v Eli Lilly litigation concerning pemetrexed, where the English Courts held that they did have jurisdiction to grant declarations of non-infringement in relation to foreign designations of a European patent, where validity was not in issue in any sense. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 7:59 am
Eli Lilly v Actavis UK [2017] UKSC 48This is an important case about whether drugs manufactured by Actavis infringe a European patent of Lilly. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 2:21 am
However, whichever way the learned judges decide, it seems certain that “in accordance with the principles set out in Eli Lilly v Actavis” will soon be a recurring phrase for UK patent litigators when setting out their arguments on claim construction. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 12:27 pm
Hackensack Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 145, 151 (1982) (quoting Atlantic City v. [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 1:49 am
The first such substance to be approved for therapeutic use was synthetic ‘human’ insulin, developed by Genentech and first marketed by Ely Lilly in 1982. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:39 pm
Eli Lilly & Co., 192 Cal. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 9:24 am
Boyce, Criminal Law 343 (3rd ed. 1982); cf. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 7:20 am
Eli Lilly & Co., 228 N.J. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 3:34 pm
Supreme Court so decided in Stogner v. [read post]
9 Jun 2012, 6:43 am
The style of the case is, Lilly Sharp v. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 12:52 am
(Eli Lilly v Novopharm (2010 FCA 197)This exercise requires:Reviewing the entire specification (claims and entire disclosure)Identifying the promises made in the entire specification Determining whether the patent fulfils those promises by demonstration or sound prediction.This exercise is a question of law viewed through the skilled person at the time of filing (with the assistance of expert evidence) and has been applied in several cases (BMS v Apotex (2005 FC… [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 9:39 am
(Eli Lilly v Novopharm (2010 FCA 197)This exercise requires:Reviewing the entire specification (claims and entire disclosure)Identifying the promises made in the entire specification Determining whether the patent fulfils those promises by demonstration or sound prediction.This exercise is a question of law viewed through the skilled person at the time of filing (with the assistance of expert evidence) and has been applied in several cases (BMS v Apotex (2005 FC… [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 8:11 am
Hansen, (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 180 Cal.Rptr. 604. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Eli Lilly & Co., 394 F. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
Clay v. [read post]
