Search for: "PURDUE PHARMA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. "
Results 1 - 20
of 36
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2012, 8:35 pm
Laboratories, Inc.; Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.; Rhodes Technologies • Defendants: Varam, Inc.; KVK-Tech, Inc. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 8:34 pm
Laboratories, Inc., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., Rhodes Technologies, Board of Regents of the University of Texas Systems, Grunenthal GMBH • Defendant: Sandoz Inc. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 10:43 am
The appellant Purdue Pharma was represented by:GREGORY A. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 9:28 pm
Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2024, 9:59 pm
Click-to-Call Technologies, LP (2020)"; "Return Mail, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 8:00 am
(patent infringement) 1/21: Purdue Pharma Products LP and Napp Pharmaceutical Group Ltd. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 4:47 pm
(Patent Docs) Ryzolt (Tramadol) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed following a Paragraph IV certification: Purdue Pharma Products LP et al. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2009, 8:11 am
(patent infringement) 9/4: Purdue Pharma Products LP, Napp Pharmaceutical Group Ltd., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. [read post]
13 May 2010, 4:58 pm
Kappos (Orange Book Blog) (FDA Law Blog) OxyContin (Oxycodone) – US: Patent infringement suit following a Paragraph IV certification: Purdue Pharma L.P. et al v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 9:45 am
Knowles Electronics LLC (patent infringement) 11/5: Purdue Pharma Products LP and Napp Pharmaceutical Group Ltd. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 9:46 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top Pharma & Biotech intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 5:10 am
USA, Inc; Eli Lilly & Co. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2016, 4:04 am
Purdue Pharma Technologies, Inc. 51. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 6:03 pm
Claim Construction: CSP Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 8:02 am
In ABC, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:09 am
Epic Pharma, LLC, 16-289 (whether the circumstances of invention can help prove non-obviousness) (The Purdue and Grunenthal cases stem from the same Federal Circuit decision but involve separate patents owned by the respective petitioners) Claim Construction: CSP Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 5:44 pm
, No. 16-296 (OxyContin patent – when is an element ‘inherently’ disclosed by the prior art for anticipation purposes) Obviousness: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 11:46 am
Purdue Pharma Technologies, Inc.51. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:16 am
Epic Pharma, LLC, 16-289 (whether the circumstances of invention can help prove non-obviousness) (The Purdue and Grunenthal cases stem from the same Federal Circuit decision but involve separate patents owned by the respective petitioners) Claim Construction: CSP Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am
Claim Construction: CSP Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
