Home > Legal Library > Advanced Search > Search Results









Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected



Search Results (703)

  
Documents on Intellectual Property, Pharmaceuticals
 

View Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  >>
Show: results per page
Sort by:
Sponsored Results

HTMLPharmaceutical Company Can't Force Journalist to Testify, Judge Rules
Zoe Tillman; Rothwell Figg Ernst Manbeck A Professional Corporation;
Legal Alert/Article
August 28, 2015, previously published on August 21, 2015
Pharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. cannot force a journalist to testify about an article he wrote in 2007 that was cited in a shareholder lawsuit against the company, a federal district judge in Washington ruled on Friday.

 

HTMLCanada's Federal Court of Appeal Upholds C$180 Million Judgment in Favour of Merck Against Apotex in a Landmark Patent Damages Ruling
Steven Mason, David Tait, Steven Tanner; McCarthy Tetrault LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
August 6, 2015, previously published on July 30, 2015
In a Judgment released July 23, 2015, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court’s award of more than C$180 million in damages and interest for Apotex’s infringement of Merck’s Canadian lovastatin patent. In this decision, the Federal Court of Appeal reversed the Trial...

 

HTMLAstrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2015 FC 671
Adrian J. Howard, Beverley Moore, Chantal Saunders; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
July 14, 2015, previously published on July 07, 2015
The parties moved under Rule 397 to modify the terms of the judgment in the proceeding, previously reported as 2015 FC 322 and summarized in our newsletter the week of April 13, 2015.

 

HTMLNovartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited, 2015 FC 770
Adrian J. Howard, Beverley Moore, Chantal Saunders; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
July 14, 2015, previously published on July 07, 2015
Novartis has obtained an order prohibiting the Minister from providing an NOC to Teva for EXJADE®. At the hearing, the issues were narrowed by Teva who alleged the patent was invalid for inutility, obviousness and insufficiency.

 

Adobe PDFChallenging and Defending Obviousness at the PTAB
Brittany M. Martinez, Bradley J. Van Pelt; Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.;
Legal Alert/Article
June 2, 2015, previously published on Spring/Summer 2015
In the first two-and-a-half years of inter partes review (IPR) precedent, IPRs have proven to be an effective means of challenging the validity of a patent. More than 73 percent of claims originally challenged in IPR petitions have been either cancelled by the patent owner or found unpatentable by...

 

Adobe PDFStrategies in Inter Partes Review Proceedings for Biotech/Pharma Patents
Robert H. Resis; Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.;
Legal Alert/Article
June 2, 2015, previously published on Spring/Summer 2015
In October 2013, about one year after inter partes review (IPR) proceedings became available, the chief judge of the Federal Circuit called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) a “death squad.” Certainly, a high percentage of early IPR petitioners enjoyed success getting the PTAB to...

 

Adobe PDFThe Supreme Court's Impact on IP Rights in 2015
Jordan N. Bodner, Camille Sauer; Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.;
Legal Alert/Article
June 2, 2015, previously published on Spring/Summer 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court has generated quite a few closely-watched intellectual property decisions in 2014, analyzed in Banner & Witcoff’s Spring and Fall 2014 Newsletters. The trend has continued during the start of the 2014-15 term, with decisions on the appropriate standard for reviewing...

 

HTMLCourt of Appeal Raises Issues of Construction and Medical Treatment That Should Be Considered by a Higher Court in Future Cases
Adrian J. Howard, Beverley Moore, Chantal Saunders; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
June 1, 2015, previously published on May 20, 2015
Both Bayer and Cobalt appealed from the Court’s judgment. Both appeals were addressed by the Court of Appeal in this decision.

 

HTMLOntario Court of Appeal Conclusively Dismisses Generic’s Unjust Enrichment Arguments in Section 8 Case
Adrian J. Howard, Beverley Moore, Chantal Saunders; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
June 1, 2015, previously published on May 20, 2015
Apotex has brought a case against Lilly pursuant to s. 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice ofCompliance) Regulations (the NOC Regulations). As part of the case, Apotex seeks damages pursuant to s. 8, under the Statute of Monopolies (U.K.), the Ontario Statute of Monopolies, and the Trade-Marks Act,...

 

Adobe PDFPOSITA Motivated to Pursue Clinical Development of Therapy Disclosed in Prior Art Despite Potential Safety and Efficacy Hurdles
Robert H. Resis; Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.;
Legal Alert/Article
May 25, 2015, previously published on March 6, 2015
The PTAB recently held that the challenged claims in two patents assigned to Genzyme and one patent assigned to Duke University on methods for treating Pompe disease are invalid.

 


View Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  >>