Search for: "State v. Lilly" Results 41 - 60 of 718
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Feb 2019, 2:26 pm
 Finally, there was an analysis of the recent decision of the District Court of The Hague that the Dutch part of Eli Lilly and Company's patent EP 1 313 508 is valid. [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 3:03 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 4:27 am
Ever since Actavis v Eli Lilly ([2017] UKSC 48) dragged equivalence into the UK patent infringement system there has been an open question regarding the future of the so-called 'Gillette defence'. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 11:09 pm
In many circumstances, she had to make a decision because the law required it but it was not necessarily the best thing for the family.Inevitably there was some discussion about the implications of Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 4:00 am by Alan Macek
The Supreme Court of Canada stated (Free World Trust v. [read post]
29 Dec 2018, 2:17 am
- Asolo v Red Bull | Questioning the trade mark judges [read post]
21 Dec 2018, 9:14 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Robinson v Secretary of State for the Home Department (formerly JR (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department) was heard on 15 November 2018. [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 9:49 am
finding that unregistered design rights are more commonly litigated and have a much higher success rate than registered designs: There's a new IPO report on designs infringement - game-changer or stating the obvious? [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 2:09 am by Miquel Montañá
For example, in its judgment of 12 December 2013 (Case C-493/12 Elli Lilly v. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 3:49 am
Since the landmark UK Supreme Court decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly ([2017] UKSC 48), judges of the lower courts have voiced the need for clarification from the Supreme Court. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 8:28 am by Brian Cordery
The Court therefore gave consideration to what Lord Kitchin denoted the “Actavis questions” further to the Supreme Court decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 12:57 am by Eszter Szakács
Then, just like the HIPO, the court looked at the CJEU’s Eli Lilly judgment decision and stated that from that it is clear that in order to be eligible for an SPC for the combination there is no requirement for rosuvastatin to be mentioned structurally in the claim provided that the claim – interpreted in light of the description as provided in Art 69 EPC and the corresponding Hungarian rule – relates implicitly but necessarily and specifically to it. [read post]
29 Sep 2018, 8:09 pm by Patent Docs
True Health Diagnostics LLC -- Eli Lilly & Co. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 1:25 am by Kluwer Patent Blog
’“ 3) International Investment Arbitration, the European Patent Office, and the Future Unified Patent Court by Thomas Musmann “Since the Eli Lilly v. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 1:20 am by Kluwer Patent blogger
’“ 3) International Investment Arbitration, the European Patent Office, and the Future Unified Patent Court by Thomas Musmann “Since the Eli Lilly v. [read post]