Novartis loses DULERA patent in India
User Rating: / 0
Earlier this month, the Swiss Multinational Novartis lost DULERA post-grant opposition to Mumbai-based Cipla as the Chennai Patent Office revoked Indian Patent Number 202350 on the ground ofZum Artikel: |
Cipla knocks down key patent blocking i-pill
User Rating: / 0
In another post-grant opposition decided earlier this month, the Mumbai Patent Office revoked Indian Patent Number 202297 issued to Richter Gedon protecting emergency contraceptive pill containingZum Artikel: |
Mylan generic Mirapex violates Boehringer’s patent
User Rating: / 0
Judge Faith S. Hochberg of the District Court of the District of New Jersey lately ruled in the favor of Boehringer Ingelheim and found Boehringer’s US Patent Number 4,886,812 infringed andZum Artikel: |
Patent Circle on Facebook and Twitter
User Rating: / 0
We are extremely happy to be back to blogging after a considerable time gap. Last 10-12 months had been very busy and hectic for us as well as the memorable time of our life as Seema and I becameZum Artikel: |
Aurobindo and Torrent loses Uroxatral patent lawsuit
User Rating: / 0
Judge Gregory Sleet of the US District Court for the District of Delaware lately decided in favor of Sanofi-Aventis in Uroxatral patent lawsuit and ruled that Sanofi’s US Patent Number 4,661,491 isZum Artikel: |
NCEs Outside the Scope of Sec. 3(d), Efficacy Data not Required - I
User Rating: / 0
Patent Circle earlier posted the issuance of Indian Patent Number 237430 to Novartis against the Application Number 3003/CHENP/2003 for anticancer drug Nilotinib, globally marketed as Tasigna. LikeZum Artikel: |
NCEs Outside the Scope of Sec. 3(d), Efficacy Data not Required - II
User Rating: / 0
Continued from our last post where we briefly discussed about the rejection of pre-grant opposition filed by Cipla for the Application Number 3003/CHENP/2004 for anti-cancer drug Nilotinib whichZum Artikel: |
BGH, I ZR 27/08 – Telefonwerbung nach Unternehmenswechsel
User Rating: / 0
BGH, Urteil vom 11. März 2010 – I ZR 27/08 – Telefonwerbung nach Unternehmenswechsel Amtlicher Leitsatz: Wer nach einem Wechsel zu einem anderen Unternehmen Kunden seines ehemaligenZum Artikel: |
BGH, I ZR 123/08 – Espressomaschine: Irreführende Preisangabe über ein Preisvergleichsportal
User Rating: / 0
BGH, Urteil vom 11. März 2010 – I ZR 123/08 – Espressomaschine Amtlicher Leitsatz: Der durchschnittlich informierte Nutzer eines Preisvergleichsportals im Internet verbindet mit den ihmZum Artikel: |
BGH, I ZR 35/08: Berechtigungsvertrag mit der GEMA
User Rating: / 0
BGH, Urteil v. 11. März 2010 – I ZR 35/08 Aus der Urteilsbegründung: Komponisten der GEMA mit dem Abschluss eines solchen Berechtigungsvertrages sämtliche Rechte einräumen, die zur NutzungZum Artikel: |
