Search for: "State v. Tri-State Pharmaceutical"
Results 1 - 20
of 453
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2011, 6:29 pm
This week, my colleague, Jeanne Fromer, and myself had the pleasure of hosting a Tri-State conference on Intellectual Property at Fordham Law School. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 11:39 pm
(formerly Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceutical) in a Pennsylvania state court. [read post]
20 Aug 2021, 11:30 am
À.R.L. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 4:14 pm
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 615 F. [read post]
3 Aug 2007, 2:27 pm
Somerset Pharmaceuticals v. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 12:26 pm
In Corber v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 6:14 pm
IPNews® - Johnson & Johnson unit Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. won a major patent infringement victory Tuesday when a New Jersey federal judge held that its patent for the popular birth control drug Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo is valid. [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 12:48 pm
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 788 F.2d 741 (11th Cir. 1986), with Smith v. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 5:12 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2007, 11:04 am
But the world seems to have overlooked the implications of Thomson v. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 6:30 am
In Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 6:33 pm
Pharmaceutical Resources and Par Pharmaceuticals v. [read post]
17 May 2023, 8:53 am
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently ordered that two separate, but related, Hatch-Waxman cases must be tried together. [read post]
17 May 2023, 8:53 am
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently ordered that two separate, but related, Hatch-Waxman cases must be tried together. [read post]
17 May 2023, 8:53 am
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently ordered that two separate, but related, Hatch-Waxman cases must be tried together. [read post]
17 Nov 2018, 12:10 pm
Indeed, their brief in other places states their opinion that significance testing is not necessary at all: “Testing for significance, however, is often mistaken for a sine qua non of scientific inference. [read post]
22 Apr 2007, 4:39 am
Preemption is a big deal: The feds have tried to preempt state regulation of financial markets, as in Watters v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
The panel will feature the attorneys who tried the McAdams v. [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 2:11 am
In Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 11:19 am
He didn't file suit, however, until June 2009.Dead to rights under the Texas two-year statute of limitations, plaintiff tried to argue that his claim didn't "accrue" until there was scientific evidence sufficient to satisfy Texas' version of Daubert, which was imposed in Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
