Search for: "SANOFI-SYNTHELABO"
Results 41 - 59
of 59
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Aug 2011, 9:00 pm
Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [read post]
13 May 2009, 11:44 pm
Cir. 2008); see also Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 7:45 pm
" Ecolab, 569 F.3d at 1352 (quoting Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 6:15 pm
Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 10:29 pm
" Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 2:00 pm
Shortly after the drug hit the market, Sanofi-Synthelabo, which owns the Plavix patent, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, owner of the Plavix marketing rights, sought and obtained an injunction barring sales of the generic. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 11:11 am
Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 1:15 pm
Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 10:51 am
Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 8:52 am
The Updated Guidelines go through a number of cases, but the take away instructions for Office personnel can perhaps best be summarized in Example 4.18, which discusses Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [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 Pharmaceuticals ULC v Eli Lilly… [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 1:06 pm
”Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 6:14 am
And although a reference must be enabling to be anticipatory, see Sanofi-Synthelabo, 550 F.3d at 1082, unlike enablement under § 112, a reference need not, as AstraZeneca suggests, demonstrate utility or efficacy to be enabling in the context of § 102, see In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1335-36 (Fed. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 12:00 am
– visual artists will eventually receive small share of resale value of their artworks (1709 Copyright Blog) Canada Patents update – new Practice Notice on Obviousness 2 Nov 2009 – introduces four part test on obviousness following Apotex v Sanofi-Synthelabo (ipblog.ca) Court injects ‘duty of candour’ requirements for patent agents: Lundbeck Canada v Ratiopharm (Pharmacapsules @ Gowlings) Vancouver Olympic Committee unravels Cowichan sweater… [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 9:27 am
Michael Davitz, Partner at Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider and Practice Center Contributor, recently sent in this article he wrote with colleague’s Drew Schulte and Jia Li discussing the Patent Prosecution Highway and the value that can be achieved for those practitioners willing to explore the new program. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 1:40 am
AstraZeneca sought and got a preliminary injunction against Apotex, which was hankering to launch a generic version of the asthma drug Pulmicort. [read post]
20 Dec 2008, 3:00 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
10 May 2011, 1:29 pm
" Sanofi-Synthelabo v. [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 8:59 am
Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc., [2008] 3 SCR 265 At the outset, it is appropriate to refer to the words of Judson J. for this Court in Commissioner of Patents v. [read post]
