Search for: "United States v. Lilly" Results 61 - 80 of 386
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Sep 2009, 4:09 am by Tom
Decided September 10, 2009, Mikula gives full effect to Congress’s intent to overturn the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. [read post]
5 Oct 2022, 6:51 am by Dennis Crouch
Cir. 2002) (“Obtaining such a patent is a meaningful contact with the United States; it requires a patentee purposefully to avail him or herself of a significant benefit of United States law. [read post]
12 Jan 2007, 6:20 pm
The case itself notes:Classen owns the following United States Patent Numbers: (1) 6,420,139 ("the 139 patent"); (2) 6,638,739 ("the 739 patent"); (3) 5,728,385 ("the 385 patent "); and (4) 5,723,283 ("the 283 patent") (collectively, "the patents in suit"). [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 2:10 am by Oswin Ridderbusch
The referral, but unfortunately not the referred question, has now been answered by the CJEU with its order in Eli Lilly v. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 1:34 pm
It is here - the Supreme Court's decision in Eli Lilly v Actavis UK [2017] UKSC 48. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 1:33 pm
  He also opined “that Lilly obscured the results of [published clinical trials” by publishing their results in a journal published in the Netherlands and “not widely read in the United States. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 12:48 pm
. - The United States Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 2:20 pm by Floyd J. Dugas
  The statute applies retroactively back to May 27, 2007.The Ledbetter Act was passed in direct response to the United States Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. [read post]
30 May 2013, 10:34 am by S2KM Limited
Chiplin and Lilly begin their article with an extensive review of the historical debate concerning public health insurance in the United States. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 11:56 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Eli Lilly and CompanyCase number: 12-cv-2045 (United States District Court for the District of Columbia)Case filed: December 20, 2012Qualifying judgment/order: January 2, 2013 02/08/2013 05/09/2013 2013-13 SEC v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 6:55 am by Brian Cordery
The outcome can be contrasted with the Actavis v Eli Lilly litigation concerning pemetrexed, where the English Courts held that they did have jurisdiction to grant declarations of non-infringement in relation to foreign designations of a European patent, where validity was not in issue in any sense. [read post]
19 Apr 2008, 9:41 am
Did you know women in the United States are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men? [read post]