<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: infringement</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'infringement'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22infringement%22&t=%22infringement%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:46:51 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Who Owns Patents Generated By Federal Dollars?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4517350&amp;cid=t_444850_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2Fh1PK0AihVGc%2F</link>
            <description>On Monday, the US Supreme Court will hear this debate, which involves a dispute between Roche and Stanford University over the rights to HIV test kits (see here). The case is expected to clarify the implications of a 1980 law that allocates patent rights among the government, investors and institutions that receive federal funding.
Here’s the background: Stanford sued Roche in 2005 for patent infringement over technology to detect HIV levels blood using PCR, or polymerase chain reaction. The underlying discovery was made years earlier by a Stanford researcher, Mark Holodniy, who also worked with a company called Cetus that was later bought by Roche. However, the initial funding came from the federal government.
At issue is whether Holodniy had the right to assign his interest to Cetus or...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4517350</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:41:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4517350</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Abbott Wins $1.67B Appeals Court Bid Against J&amp;J</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4512611&amp;cid=t_444850_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FCMkq7oeoOAY%2F</link>
            <description>A US appeals court has reversed a two-year-old jury verdict that found Abbott Labs had to pay $1.67 billion to Johnson &amp;#038; Johnson for infringing a patent on the Remicade arthritis treatment. The spat began when J&amp;#038;J&amp;#8217;s Centocor Ortho Biotech unit and New York University filed a lawsuit in 2007, alleging Abbott&amp;#8217;s rival Humira med infringed a patent relating to antibodies for treating rheumatoid arthritis. 
The appeals court, however, decided the Centocor patent was invalid and lacked an adequate written description. The patent &amp;#8220;at best, describes a plan for making fully-human antibodies and then identifying those that satisfy the claim limitation,&amp;#8221; the court wrote. &amp;#8220;But a &amp;#8216;mere wish or plan&amp;#8217; for obtaining the claimed invention is not sufficie...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4512611</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:39:28 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4512611</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Device Maker Fights Lawyers With A Lawsuit</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4512614&amp;cid=t_444850_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FTrLJNSnlxMg%2F</link>
            <description>Trolling for patients who may have been harmed by a drug or device is hardly new. Product recalls and safety warnings can trigger a barrage of ads and the media, including highway billboards, are regularly brimming with solicitations from law firms that are seeking new business. Of course, this also generates a lot of work for law firms that specialize in defending these companies. 
But one medical device maker, Zimmer, is fighting back by suing three law firms in hopes of sending a message. In its complaint, which was filed recently in federal court in Indiana, Zimmer claims the firms created web sites that allegedly depicted details of a 2010 recall of its NexGen knee replacement device inaccurately; infringed on trademarks, and sent &amp;#8220;false and misleading&amp;#8221; letters to healthca...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4512614</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:54:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4512614</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharmalot… Pharmalittle… Good Morning</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3552548&amp;cid=t_444850_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FMS-PTE-LQVU%2F</link>
            <description>Hello, everyone. Nice to see you again. Another shiny day here on the Pharmalot corporate campus where the grounds are being spruced up in a long overdue move. What will today bring? Important meetings and deadlines, no doubt. As you ready yourself, here are a few items to help you along. Best of luck and catch you later&amp;#8230;
Galapagos Widens Lung Drug Deal With Roche (Reuters)
Drugmakers Leave New Jersey&amp;#8217;s Medicine Chest Bare (NJ Spotlight)
Purdue Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Ranbaxy (Business Standard)
Merck And Glenmark Settle Zetia Patent Suit (Bloomberg News)
UK Drug Shortages May Last Until 2011 (PharmaTimes)
Proton Pump Inhibitors Increase Bone Fracture Risk (Los Angeles Times)
Cost Of Treating Cancer Doubles (Associated Press)
Roche Seeks Deal Approval In Accutane...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3552548</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 11:31:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3552548</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>UK Trust Sues Amgen &amp; Wyeth Over Enbrel Patent</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2939563&amp;cid=t_444850_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FabXr0sBkcoo%2F</link>
            <description>The Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust filed its lawsuit in federal court in Delaware, seeking royalties and damages from Wyeth and Amgen for infringing a patent for treating arthritis. The drug makers jointly market Enbrel, a best-selling med, for treating rheumatoid arthritis.
In its lawsuit, the trust alleges its 2001 patent was developed by Marc Feldmann and Ravinder Maini, both with the Imperial College London. The patent relates to treating arthritis by co-administering methotrexate and drugs that block receptors to an inflammation-causing protein called tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFa) such as Enbrel, according to the lawsuit (you can read it here).
Amgen and Wyeth have refused demands for royalty payments, the complaint said. The Enbrel website says...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2939563</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:56:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2939563</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Minding the Media: Ralph Lauren Sinks Lower and Lower</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2894565&amp;cid=t_444850_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F10%2F15%2Fminding-the-media-ralph-lauren-sinks-lower-and-lower%2F</link>
            <description>Model Filippa Hamilton &amp;#8212; 5&amp;#8242;10&amp;#8243; and 120 pounds &amp;#8212; recently was fired from Ralph Lauren for being fat.
According to Hamilton, who had worked for the designer since 2002, “they fired me because they said I was overweight and I couldn&amp;#8217;t fit in their clothes anymore.” 
After initially picking my jaw up off the floor, I wondered, “Should we really be flabbergasted?” Unfortunately, most of us are well aware of the fashion industry’s skewed standards. Just recently fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld had this to say after finding out that the German magazine, Brigitte was going to use “real women” instead of models: 
No one wants to see curvy women. You&amp;#8217;ve got fat mothers with their bags of chips sitting in front of the television and saying thin models...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2894565</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:09:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2894565</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Libertarian Case against the Google Book Search Deal</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2793136&amp;cid=t_444850_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FwDbkAurfUmk%2F</link>
            <description>Five years ago, Google began scanning millions of books for inclusion in what eventually became Google Book Search. Google carefully designed the service to stay within the boundaries of copyright&amp;#8217;s fair use provisions, at least as Google interpreted them. Still, some authors and publishers objected, and in 2005 they filed a lawsuit accusing Google of copyright infringement. The lawsuit dragged on for more than three years. Finally, in 2008, the parties announced a settlement of the lawsuit. Its text runs for 140 pages, not counting a secret termination clause available only to Google and its adversaries. The deadline for comments on the settlement was earlier this month, and on October 7 a federal judge must decide whether to approve or reject the settlement.
I was (and still am) fi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2793136</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:07:12 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2793136</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>J&amp;J And The Red Cross Resolve Trademark Suit</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1526780&amp;cid=t_444850_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F314133177%2F</link>
            <description>After nearly a year of wrangling and public dueling, the two behemoths have struck a deal that allows both to continue using the iconic emblem they&amp;#8217;ve shared for more than a century. The agreement comes after a federal judge last month booted most of the lawsuit filed by J&amp;#038;J, which claimed the Red Cross broke the law by licensing the ubiquitous symbol to other companies.
Originally, J&amp;#038;J insisted the Red Cross stop using the emblem on health-care products sold to the public. Part of the suit was dismissed in November, but Johnson &amp;#038; Johnson continued to argue that the Red Cross violated federal law by licensing the symbol to other companies.
&amp;#8220;Johnson &amp;#038; Johnson brought the lawsuit very reluctantly only to protect what we believed were important trademark issues...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1526780</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:30:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1526780</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is Traditional Media Losing Its Ethics?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1512271&amp;cid=t_444850_85_f&amp;fid=36194&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ftesstermulo.com%2F2008%2F06%2F12%2Fis-traditional-media-losing-its-ethics%2F</link>
            <description>Even if there are still many people who&amp;#8217;d blankly stare at the mention of the word &amp;#8220;blog&amp;#8221;, it is undeniable that the blogging phenomenon has pervaded the consciousness of the average people, most especially through traditional media. Newspapers like Manila Bulletin and online information websites like Blog Addicts of You have featured bloggers and their works. And certainly, some journalists have also become bloggers. It seemed that traditional media have accepted and acknowledged the value of blogging in this Information Age.
Or maybe not. Maybe traditional media is in it for a love-and-hate relationship with blogging.
In several news episodes, mostly touching on the Brian Gorrell phenomenon, reporters often cautioned about readily believing information that can be found...</description>
            <author>Prudence and Madness</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1512271</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:33:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1512271</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wyeth Reeling As Teva Ships Generic Protonix</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1115166&amp;cid=t_444850_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F205707378%2F</link>
            <description>The drugmaker was caught by surprise and plans to file a patent infringement lawsuit to stop the Israeli generic manufacturer from making additional shipments of its heartburn med. Meanwhile, Wyeth is revising its business plan and will have to cut costs. Wall Street reacted by boosting Teva shares, but punishing Wyeth stock, which was down by 4 percent at one point this morning.
The companies are already embroiled in a lawsuit over the drug. In September, a federal Judge in New Jersey denied a motion by Wyeth and its partner, Altana Pharma, to halt sales of Teva&amp;#8217;s generic version, which the FDA approved the previous month. While Teva is not disputing it infringed the patent, it is arguing the patent itself is not valid, the Associated Press reminds us. Wyeth, which expects a trial t...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1115166</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:24:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1115166</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bayer Sues Hospital For Patent Infringement</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=804516&amp;cid=t_444850_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F145150355%2F</link>
            <description>First, Johnson &amp;#038; Johnson sues the American Red Cross over the red cross trademark. Now, the German drugmaker is suing a hospital in Ontario, Canada, for allegedlly duplicating its Cipro antibiotic and selling a more concentrated, generic version. This may be another no-win situation for a big pharma, but clearly, suing a hospital trying to serve patients doesn&amp;#8217;t look good.
&amp;#8220;I think this is going to look, from Bayer&amp;#8217;s point of view, pretty petty,&amp;#8221; Joel Lexchin, an emergency doctor and health policy professor at Toronto&amp;#8217;s York University, tells The National Post. &amp;#8220;The hospital is probably doing this for a small number of patients, costing Bayer almost zilch in terms of lost sales. If this drives up hospital costs, Bayer, I don&amp;#8217;t think, would loo...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=804516</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:54:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">804516</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

