Search for: "Watson v. US" Results 81 - 100 of 1,010
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 May 2012, 8:41 pm by Mark Summerfield
Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2011] FCA 1520 (14 December 2011) Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 2) [2012] FCA 142 (28 February 2012) Watson Pharma Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2012] FCA 200 (9 March 2012) Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 3) [2012] FCA 265 (23 March 2012) AstraZenenca’s cholesterol drug CRESTOR will remain without generic competition in the Australian market for the foreseeable future, following a series of interlocutory… [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 11:10 am
I'm not going to complain about Judge Milan Smith's opinion in this case. which holds that you're still a fugitive (for purposes of the period of federal supervised release) even if you're arrested on state charges.But I would like to say that I'm not all that impressed with federal supervised release if federal authorities fail to supervise -- or catch -- you when, as here, you're arrested eleven different times during this period.Sure, these arrests were by state… [read post]
24 May 2010, 7:39 am by Kent Scheidegger
The Supreme Court dismissed as improvidently granted the case of Robertson v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 5:26 pm by Christian Stegmaier
Within the last several weeks, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed a substantial personal injury verdict in the case of Watson v. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 8:17 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Watson did that in this case, the Court of Appeals holds, because the harassment was pervasive "over a prolonged period of time" and supervisors were openly reading pornographic magazines and using the offensive screensavers. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 7:07 am
Watson (08-6261), and Carachuri-Rosendo v. [read post]
4 Jun 2019, 2:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with Watson. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 8:58 pm by Patent Docs
The conference will allow attendees to: • Devise strategies relative to the use of new PTO proceedings such as IPR in Hatch-Waxman litigation; • Understand how new 271(e)(1) controversies under Claussen and Momenta may undo Roche v. [read post]