Home > Legal Library > Advanced Search > Search Results









Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected



Search Results (1435)

  
Documents on Litigation, Pharmaceuticals, Health Care
 

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

HTMLThe Federal Court finds two Generic Company’s Allegations to be Unjustified
Adrian J. Howard, Beverley Moore, Chantal Saunders, Ryan Steeves; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
July 21, 2014, previously published on July 10, 2014
Two PM (NOC) decisions relating to the same patent were recently released by the Federal Court. In both cases, the applications were allowed, prohibiting the Minister from issuing an NOC to both Cobalt and Apotex for their generic versions of Allergan’s drug. The Court’s reasons are...

 

HTMLEven in Privacy Cases, Risk of Injury Does not Always Equal Injury
Kevin M. McGinty; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
July 18, 2014, previously published on July 16, 2014
It’s an ancient conundrum; if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Privacy litigation may well offer the closest jurisprudential equivalent; if data is stolen, but no one does anything with it, has there been an injury? A recent Illinois state...

 

HTMLCanada Patent Litigation: Federal Court Rules “Enhanced Disclosure” Requirement for Sound Prediction Applies Only To “New Use” Patents
Sanjaya Mendis, David Tait; McCarthy Tétrault LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
July 17, 2014, previously published on July 11, 2014
On July 2, 2014, Mr. Justice Rennie of the Federal Court released his judgment and reasons in Astrazeneca Canada Inc v. Apotex Inc., 2014 FC 638 dismissing AstraZeneca’s action for infringement and granting Apotex’s counterclaim for a declaration that Canadian Patent 2,139,653 (the...

 

HTMLSupreme Court Rules Some Employers Exempt From ACA Contraception Mandate
Craig O. Sieverding; Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
July 15, 2014, previously published on July 1, 2014
In a widely anticipated decision issued on June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, as it applies to closely-held corporations, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

 

HTMLThe Affordable Care Act—Countdown to Compliance for Employers, Week 25: What Hobby Lobby Means for the Affordable Care Act—Absolutely Nothing
Alden J. Bianchi; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
July 10, 2014, previously published on July 7, 2014
To call the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. much-anticipated or highly controversial is an understatement. And, to be clear, any time the Supreme Court weighs in on bed-rock constitutional principle—particularly as it affects the church-state...

 

HTMLThe Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia clarified the limits on punitive damages and the scope of the states Medical Professionals Liability Act, Nursing Home Act, and law of fiduciary duty in nursing home negligence cases.
Richard J. Medoff; Semmes Bowen Semmes A Professional Corporation;
Legal Alert/Article
July 9, 2014, previously published on June 2014
In Manor Care, Inc. v. Douglas, a case involving the appeal of a $91.5 million jury verdict in a nursing home negligence case, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that: (1) the verdict form did not allow the jury to award damages to non-parties, (2) the Medical Professionals...

 

HTMLImpact of Hobby Lobby: Closely Held Corporations May Object to ACA’s Contraceptive Mandate
Goldberg Segalla LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
July 8, 2014, previously published on July 2, 2014
In a highly anticipated decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. --- (June 30, 2014), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) as applied by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to closely held...

 

HTMLIs the DOJ FCPA Enforcement Hegemony Dead?
Alexandra M. Gorman, Michael K. Loucks; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
July 3, 2014, previously published on June 26, 2014
For nearly 15 years, the United States has had the worldwide corruption enforcement stage to itself, reaping billions of dollars in fines and settlement payments from companies that have acknowledged engaging in bribery in foreign countries. That monopoly, however, may soon end. In a report...

 

Adobe PDFSupreme Court: Lanham Act Suit Not Preempted By FDA Regulation
Keller Heckman LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
June 20, 2014, previously published on June 12, 2014
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that competitors may file an action under the Lanham Act to challenge the name, label, marketing and advertising of beverages and other food regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.* Neither the...

 

HTMLCompliance with FDA Regulations May Not Protect a Company From the Risk of Liability to Competitors via Unfair Competition Challenges
Douglas J. Behr, Alyssia J. Bryant, Melvin S. Drozen, Arthur S. Garrett; Keller and Heckman LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
June 20, 2014, previously published on June 16, 2014
On June 12, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously held that one competitor may sue another under the federal Lanham Act for false, misleading, or deceptive advertising and labeling of its food and beverage products even though the labeling may conform with FDA regulations. The Supreme Court took the...

 


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