Search for: "State v. Lilly" Results 361 - 380 of 920
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2020, 12:34 am
Finally, this   part of the book discusses the impact of the ruling in Regents of the University of California v Eli Lilly & Co and how  this case has influenced the application of the written description requirement in the US. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 10:05 pm by Mark Summerfield
  Prior to this change, advice provided by foreign practitioners was not protected by patent attorney privilege (Eli Lilly & Company v Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals (No 2) [2004] FCA 850: ‘The language of s 200(2) is clear. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 6:54 am
CAT View4485523 ELITE YIELD SOLUTIONS View4480280 TRU-FLEX View4482674 WELLPOINT View4480770 LMAX View4480713 NOTRE DAME FEDERAL CREDIT UNION View4480697 FINDERS KEEPERS VENDOR OUTLET MALL View4480686 LEADMAX View4480672 HETSCO View4480583 THE IUSM SAFETY STORE View4480582 THE SAFETY STORE AT RILEY HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN View4480404 NOVELTYMINTS View4482805 CRIMSON GUARD View4480216 HAIR HUGGERS View4480198 RCMA View4480156 NO MORE EXCUSES View4480109 E&A COMPANIES … [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 2:57 am
 The UCL debate on the UK Supreme Court decision Actavis v Eli Lilly ("Equivalents: K = Na. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 10:32 am
”Even here, however, we see signs that UK courts are trying to be more consistent with the EPO, and in the HGS v Lilly litigation, reading the decision of the Supreme Court in Human Genome Sciences Inc. v Eli Lilly and Company [2011] UKSC 51 (see IPKat here) it is possible discern in the judgment a desire to not only apply the jurisprudence of the EPO Boards of Appeal, but also to reach the same conclusion (of sufficiency of the claims) on the specific… [read post]
13 May 2014, 9:23 am
"All this is compliant with the GAT and Folien decisions and the Corte di Cassazione ruling, as well the UK decision in Joined cases Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) and Medis ehf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) [here]. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 4:17 am
 Tune in LIVE for tomorrow's Eli Lilly v Actavis Supreme Court showdownThe Supreme Court was live online to hear Tom Mitcheson QC (supported by  Andrew Waugh QC and leading Stuart Baran) for Eli Lilly against Danny Alexander QC (leading Thomas Raphael QC) for Actavis.Oldie but goldie - when is old prior art a suitable starting point for inventive step analysis? [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 3:27 am by Amy Howe
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 1:56 pm
”Apotex’s Second ClaimIn his earlier judgment in Lilly v 8PM, Arnold J had held that the ex turpi causa rule applied where the beneficiary of the cross-undertaking has to rely to a substantial extent upon his own illegality in order to establish the loss claimed. [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 3:41 pm
UK Supreme Court moves towards a UK Doctrine of Equivalents in Lilly pemetrexed battle? [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 1:25 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
 Normal pharma contract: Eli Lilly v. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 4:55 pm
Supreme Court decisions that have barred these lawsuits against state governments; and (8) Overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckhannon Board & Care Home v. [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 9:18 am by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.
  In her 27 years as a justice, was a powerful voice in such opinions as United States v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
June. 13, 2013), holding essentially that, since those meanies on the United States Supreme Court aren’t letting plaintiffs sue generic manufacturers, we’ll change Alabama common law and let them sue someone else. [read post]
28 Apr 2019, 7:45 am
   The leading case in the UK post pregabalin is Eli Lilly v Genentech [2019] EWHC 387, where Arnold J also found that the plausibility threshold was not met.The key take home message is that plausibility is alive and well in the UK. [read post]