Search for: "US v. Mark Lambert"
Results 1 - 20
of 144
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2015, 3:41 pm
In "Warner-Lambert v Actavis Mark 2, still at first instance: more on Swiss claims, Skinny Labels, and no Strikeout" (here), posted on Friday 6 February. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
This Kat posted last month on the fascinating case of Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat), in which Arnold J gave the first detailed UK consideration of what a Swiss-form claim means. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 1:55 am
The full citation is Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group PTC EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 485 (Pat) (02 March 2015).Rather than reproduce earlier posts, the IPKat would refer readers who are new to this saga to his earlier posts, hereand here.That this Order was made was intriguing to this moggy. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 1:35 pm
In a decision that is only moderately Arnoldian (139 paragraphs), Mr Justice Arnold refused today to grant an interim injunction that Warner Lambert had requested against Actavis [Warner -Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat) (21 January 2015)]. [read post]
13 Oct 2018, 2:37 am
Royal Courts of Justice Author Anthony MLicence Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 genericSource Wikimedia Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Kitchin, Lord Justice Floyd and Sir Colin Rimer) Argos Ltd. v Argos Systems Inc. [read post]
22 Apr 2018, 8:40 am
Keta Lomidze and Alasdhair McDonald, who both work within the intellectual property team at CMS, preview the decision awaited in Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd t/a Mylan & Anor: A highly publicised dispute, concerning second medical use protection of the drug Pregabalin, has finally reached the Supreme Court and is currently awaiting its decision. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 12:22 am
This Kat posted a short report of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales, judgment delivered by Lord Justice Floyd in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWCA Civ 556, and has in the meantime been cogitating and ruminating (hard as that is for a non-ruminant carnivore) on what it all means.To remind readers on where we were before this appeal decision, Warner-Lambert marketed the drug pregabalin for three authorised indications… [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 2:33 pm
The first wave of defense briefing is now complete in Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 5:46 am
Thanks to Jane Lambert and her NIPC Law blog for drawing my attention to Jaguar Land Rover Ltd v Twisted Automotive Ltd [2018] EWHC 3536 (Ch) (20 December 2018) which is a judgment of Rose J in an appeal against the 15 May 2018 (O-289-18) decision of Ms Louise White acting for the Registrar of Trade Marks. [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 6:01 am
Jane Lambert Barrister NIPC Law blog On 30 Oct 2007 the Legal Services Act received Royal Assent. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
The Black Dog Tavern Company, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 9:33 am
The case is Bulger v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 12:23 pm
| Hospira v Genetech Mark 1, the Appeal | [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 9:49 am
- Asolo v Red Bull | Questioning the trade mark judgesNever Too Late 203 [Weeks ending 14 and 21 Oct] Does FEYONCÉ blur BEYONCÉ's distinctiveness? [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:36 am
| 3-D Lego trade mark | Garcia v Google | B+ subgroup | EU trade mark reform and counterfeits in transit | French v Battistelli | US v Canada over piracy | UK Supreme Court in Starbucks | BASCA v The Secretary of State for Business | Patent litigation, music, politics | Product placement in Japan.Never too late 50 [week ending on Sunday 7 June] - Swiss claims | Italian-sounding trade marks for… [read post]
28 Apr 2019, 7:45 am
Further, if a patent is granted early, it will expire early and the public will gain benefits earlier.The Warner Lambert v Generics case again raised the question of whether a patentee can mark out a field in which he will have protection while undertaking further research. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 2:56 am
The Supreme Court has not given us much help in resolving similar issues in the future.The decision was very different in tone to Warner Lambert and Lilly v Actavis. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 2:43 pm
It is about a business that got a bunch of trade marks covering the somewhat unregistrable word "supreme", and then decided to bring proceedings against a defendant who wasn't using the word as a trade mark and whose use of it went back 20 years, recounts Jeremy.* The EPO: privileged and immune says the PresidentMerpel re-sinks her paws in the hot story of the decision that Hague Court of Appeal issued in the sadly famous proceedings in SUEPO… [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 1:15 am
* Warner-Lambert v Actavis Mark 2, still at first instance: more on Swiss claims, Skinny Labels, and no StrikeoutDarren covers another Arnoldian decision in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 223 (Pat). [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 8:22 am
Awaiting Warner-Lambert v ActavisOver at the IP Alchemist blog, former Kat Darren Smyth takes a look at the recent decision from the CJEU in the case of Teva v Gilead C-121/17: Teva v Gilead – C-121/17 provides some clarity on combination products. [read post]
