Search for: "Par Pharmaceutical, Inc."
Results 141 - 160
of 171
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jul 2017, 8:33 am
" Par Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1195-96. [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 11:53 pm
Actavis acquired Allergan, Inc. in June 2015 and the merged company took Allergan’s name. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 10:51 pm
(FDA Law Blog) US: Another academic with solutions to problems that don’t exist (Patent Docs) US: Syngenta files for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of Bayer’s patents based on its development of GM crops containing HPPD gene (Patent Docs) US: District Court New Jersey: Loss of market share to infringing competitor during six year reexamination warrants denial of stay: Wyeth et al v Abbott (Docket Report) US: District Court New Jersey: Court precludes jury… [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 5:34 pm
Barr’s ANDA filing was second to that of Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [read post]
11 Nov 2021, 10:08 am
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 7:04 am
– CAFC decision in Agilent Techs v Affymetrix concerning claims pertaining to ‘microarray hybridization’ (Gray on Claims) US: Counterclaims dismissed in Alzheimer’s Institute/ Mayo patent licensing dispute over transgenic mice (Patent Docs) Products (Tavanic) Levofloxacin – UK: EWCA upholds decision that Daiichi’s Levofloxacin patent and SPC both invalid: Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and Daiichi… [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 7:00 pm
It was withdrawn at Par Pharmaceuticals based on the Board of Directors' commitment to adopt the policy in 2009. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 4:00 am
Pfizer Canada ULC, 2020 FC 1, at para. 42. [3] See Sections 27(3)(b) and 28.3 of the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4 [4] Burton Parsons Chemicals, Inc v Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd, [1976] 1 SCR 555 at 563 [5] Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc, 2008 SCC 61 at paragraph 37, [2008] 3 SCR 265; see also Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée v Eurocopter, société par actions simplifiée, 2013 FCA 219 at paragraph 65; Mylan… [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 7:52 am
(IP Think Tank) Brazilian public-private partnerships in the pharma industry (IP tango) EU: ECJ to rule on reference on SPC Regulation interpretation from Lithuania in Kirin Amgen, Inc. v Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras (The SPC Blog) India: Delhi High Court Dasatinib order: Is patent-drug regulatory linkage a necessity? [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 3:03 am
In the case at issue, the appellant, Shopify Inc., appealed the decision of the GC T‑222/21, SHOPPI (already commented here), alleging infringement of Article 53(1) of EUTM Regulation no. 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b). [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 11:14 am
” “[P]urposes not prohibited by this chapter” is defined as“[a]ny peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity,” and other specific purposes. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 6:30 am
©2014 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 9:34 am
WARNING LETTERMark BaumImprimis Pharmaceuticals Inc.12264 El Camino Real, Suite 350San Diego, CA 92130Dear Mr. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 2:41 pm
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 209 Cal. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 1:44 am
* "Fool's errand": no need to create your own brand if you can use someone else's Jeremy notes Speciality European Pharma Ltd v Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd & Madaus GmbH [2015] EWCA Civ 54 [on which see earlier katpost here], a trade mark infringement decision of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales, on parallel importation and over-stickering of pharmaceutical products. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm
Nursing Homes: PATIENTS SUFFER SUB-PAR CARE AT CALIFORNIA FACILITIES, CLASS ACTION SAYS, Valentine v. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
Wyeth, Inc., 168 Cal. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 8:28 am
Supreme Court in its upcoming term, in the Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 1:10 pm
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); General Electric Co. v. [read post]
17 Jan 2008, 7:55 am
Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (holding that state common law torts were something that was subject to preemption), Medtronic, Inc. v. [read post]
