Search for: "Pfizer, Inc" Results 221 - 240 of 1,516
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Feb 2007, 7:13 am
Reuters: Pfizer appeals against Viagra trademark ruling in China: "Pfizer Inc. has filed an appeal after losing a lawsuit over the Chinese name for its impotence treatment Viagra, the U.S. drugmaker said in a statement on Wednesday. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 5:16 am
Pfizer Inc. must pay about $75 million in punitive damages to an Illinois woman who developed cancer after taking one of the drugmaker's menopause treatments. [read post]
11 May 2021, 3:01 pm by Laura Ray
  As part of the original EUA request, Pfizer Inc. submitted a plan to continue monitoring the Vaccine’s safety, and this plan has been updated to include the newly authorized adolescent population. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 12:33 pm
Pfizer Ordered to Pay $95 Million for Deceptive Marketing of NeurontinThis posting was written by Jody Coultas, Editor of CCH State Unfair Trade Practices Law.Pharmaceutical company Pfizer, Inc. violated the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by marketing its prescription drug Neurontin for a number of off-label uses and deceptively representing the efficacy of the drug for certain uses, according to the federal district court in Boston. [read post]
20 Jun 2010, 8:51 pm by Patent Docs
Pfizer Inc. et al. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 10:55 am
Pfizer, Inc., an American multinational pharmaceutical conglomerate, and the maker of many popular drugs such as Lipitor and Viagra, had better hope that the latter of those inventions doesn’t exacerbate the already enormous concern caused by their latest product recall. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 8:37 pm
Pfizer Inc. et al. v. [read post]
25 Dec 2009, 11:02 pm by Dr. Shezad Malik
Jurors said in 2007 that a Pfizer Inc. unit should pay more than $8 million in punitive damages to a woman who blamed the company’s menopause drugs for her breast cancer. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 11:00 pm by Courtenay Brinckerhoff
Pfizer, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s determination that Pfizer had proven an earlier date of invention of the DNA sequence at issue, even though it did not have the full, correct nucleotide sequence at the time. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 10:00 pm by Courtenay Brinckerhoff
According to the court’s rules, the non-precedential designation of Pfizer Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 6:22 am by Philipp Widera
Legal background regarding Arrow-declarations The underlying jurisdiction was established in Arrow Generics v Merck & Co Inc [2007] FSR 39 and approved by the Court of Appeal in Fujifilm v AbbVie [2017] EWCA Civ. 1. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 9:36 pm by Patent Docs
Pfizer Inc. et al. v. [read post]