Search for: "SANOFI-AVENTIS V APOTEX"
Results 1 - 20
of 92
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2011, 9:59 pm
By Donald Zuhn -- In an appeal decided last month, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of New York awarding prejudgment interest to Plaintiffs-Appellees Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc., and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership ("Sanofi"); affirmed the District Court's denial of a motion for leave to file a supplemental answer, affirmative defenses, and… [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 4:34 pm
Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 102 Share on Facebook [read post]
18 Jan 2015, 9:06 pm
LLC; Aventis Pharma S.A.; Sanofi • Defendants: Apotex Corp.; Apotex Inc. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 8:41 am
Justice Jagot has found – generously (to Sanofi-Aventis) – that Apotex’s proposed supply of a generic leflunomide product for the treatment of arthritis would infringe the psoriasis treatment patent, and that Sanofi-Aventis is thus entitled to an injunction preventing such supply. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 12:57 pm
See Sanofi-Aventis v. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 9:45 pm
By Donald Zuhn -- Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb announced today (June 19, 2007) that the U.S. [read post]
31 Aug 2006, 6:15 pm
See earlier posts from the Patent Baristas: Update: Sanofi and Bristol-Myers File for Preliminary Injunction Against Apotex Apotex To Launch Generic Plavix At Its Own Risk FTC Rejects Patent Deal by Bristol-Myers and Sanofi Does Sanofi-Aventis Patent Settlement With Apotex Reveal a Trend? [read post]
15 Aug 2006, 6:45 am
This is the court hearing the patent infringement suit, Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 6:40 am
Appeal Decision: Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 102 (18 July 2012) Appeal from: Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 846 See also: Australian Federal Court ‘Evergreens’ ARAVA for Sanofi-Aventis Claim construction – second medical use claims directed to treating specific… [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 2:57 pm
Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 102 Share on Facebook [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 8:21 am
Sanofi-Synthelabo et al. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 10:43 am
By Dennis Crouch Sanofi-Aventis v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 2:36 am
A court ruling has revealed that the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e. the Federal Government) is seeking to recover $60 million it considers has been ‘overpaid’ for the anti-clotting drug marketed by Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) and Bristol-Meyers Squibb under the brand name PLAVIX: Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi-Aventis [2015] FCA 384.Sanofi was the owner of Australian Patent No. 597784, which includes claims directed… [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 12:39 am
Sanofi-Aventis et al. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:31 am
” Sanofi- Aventis v. [read post]
13 Jan 2014, 9:59 pm
By Gary Cox, Craig Humphris and Donna Meredith -- In the decision of Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 50 (order), the High Court of Australia, Australia's supreme court, confirmed that methods of medical treatment are a "manner of manufacture" and therefore represent a patentable invention in Australia. [read post]
26 Jan 2007, 6:09 am
In August 2006, generic drug maker Apotex Inc. began selling a cheaper version of Plavix, a blood thinner Bristol-Myers co-markets with Sanofi-Aventis SA, after an agreement to settle a patent dispute fell apart. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 4:00 am
The FCA has recently adopted an interventionist approach in the area of patent validity in Sanofi-Aventis v Apotex 2013 FCA 186 (“Sanofi 2013”). [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 8:21 am
Here's the Court's official summary - which doesn't necessarily indicate precisely what the real issues will turn out to be:35886Sanofi-Aventis, et al. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2014, 11:39 pm
The judge at first instance (in Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 4) [2013] FCA 162) had found that the AstraZeneca inventions claimed in the patents at issue lacked an inventive step based, in part, on the reasoning of an earlier Full Court panel in Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis [2009] FCAFC 134. [read post]
