Search for: "SHIRE U.S., INC." Results 41 - 60 of 66
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Nov 2012, 5:00 am by Bexis
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 317 (2008).) [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 6:34 pm by FDABlog HPM
  (Novartis says in a footnote that this is the same issue recently raised in another Illinois District Court Hatch-Waxman case involving generic FOSRENOL (lanthanum carbonate) 500 mg, 750 mg, and 1000 mg Chewable Tablets – Shire Canada Inc. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2017, 11:35 am by Nate Nead
China’s Sanpower Group Co., Ltd. acquired Dendreon Pharmaceuticals Inc for $0.8 billion, and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. acquired Tolero Pharmaceuticals Inc. for $0.8 billion to assist Sumitomo to refresh its pipeline.[28] In Q4 2017, a few M&A transactions have occurred in the pharma deal market. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 6:49 am by Rebecca Tushnet
These cash distributions are contractually required by the U.S. government...So if you don’t collect someone else will. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 11:37 am by Michelle Yeary
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) (state law claims that impose requirements “different from or in addition to” FDA’s PMA requirements are preempted). [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 3:38 pm by FDABlog HPM
In a May 20, 2011 Letter Decision, FDA says that Nostrum’s exclusivity with respect to the ‘013 patent was triggered by a June 14, 2009 ruling in Shire Labs, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 1:47 pm
(Allston, MA; Tae Yi, President) Black Trace, Inc. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 12:48 am
Plaintiffs' Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 349 n.4, 352 (2001).There are other federal statutes that likewise contain language that in one way or another restricts their usage in private tort actions, most notably OSHA. [read post]
30 May 2011, 6:34 pm by FDABlog HPM
  FDA’s May 20, 2011 Letter Decision concerning 180-day exclusivity for Carbamazepine Extended-release Capsules says that Nostrum’s exclusivity with respect to the ‘013 patent was triggered by a June 14, 2009 ruling in Shire Labs, Inc. v. [read post]