Becton Dickinson v. Wolckenhauer

USDC for the District of New Jerse

Sookhoo v. Becton Dickinson Co

USDC for the District of New Jerse

BD: Healthcare Worker Safety

Este estudio de caso nace de una problemática social que aquejó a Norteamérica a principios y mediados de la década de 1980: la propagación de enfermedades de transmisión sexual mediante el uso de agujas contaminadas en los centros de salud. Becton, Dickinson B, reconoció este problema de salud y seguridad como una necesidad social y una oportunidad comercial, y en 1988, introdujo la primera jeringa de seguridad, incorporando un escudo de seguridad deslizante para proteger la aguja después de su uso, reduciendo el riesgo de lesiones e infección. De esta forma, el estudio de caso pretende analizar las variables del estudio y desarrollo de las nuevas agujas por parte de esta empresa y los retos que tuvo que enfrentar a nivel social y económico

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on four research projects.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 GM14940-06)National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant NGL 22-009-304)Boston City Hospital Purchase Order 10656B-D Electrodyne Division, Becton Dickinson and Compan

George Kersey v. Becton Dickinson Co

USDC for the District of New Jerse

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on four research projects.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 PO1 GM14940-05)National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant NGL 22-009-304)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 TO1 GM01555-05)Boston City Hospital Purchase Order 10656B-D Electrodyne Division, Becton Dickinson and Compan

Relationships of p16 Immunohistochemistry and Other Biomarkers With Diagnoses of Cervical Abnormalities Implications for LAST Terminology

Allen Press, Open AccessInformation reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the US National Institutes of Health under award number U19AI113187 and through its Developmental Research Pilot (DRP) program. Roche Molecular Systems and Ventana, a Roche Company, provided reagents and equipment at no cost. PEC has received HPV tests and assays for research at a reduced or no cost from Roche, Cepheid, Becton Dickinson, and Arbor Vita Corporation. JC has received funds from grants, cooperative agreements, or subcontracts related to cervical screening and triage through his institution. JC reports grants and personal fees from Qiagen, grants from Hologic, grants and personal fees from Becton Dickinson, grants and personal fees from Genera Biosystems, grants from Gene First, and grants from Trovagene, outside the submitted work. NW is an employee of the National Cancer Institute, which has received HPV tests at reduced cost from BD and Roche. MHS is a consultant and has received fees for clinical trial development and as an expert pathologist in clinical trials for Merck, Roche/Ventana Medical Systems, Becton Dickinson (BD), Hologic/Gen Probe, Cepheid, and Inovio Pharmaceuticals and was Co-Lead of Work Group 4 and an author of the College of American Pathologists (CAP)–American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) LAST Project. BMR received consulting fees from Merck as a member of pathology adjudication panel for HPV vaccine trials. TMD has received consultant fees from BD, Roche, Antiva, and Thevax; research supplies for anal cytology from Hologic; and was lead author on the CAP-ASCCP LAST Project. CMW has received funds from grants and cooperative agreements related to cervical screening and triage through her institution

The Resurrection of the Duty to Inquire After Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.

Balancing a duty to a tribunal and a duty to a client can paralyze a lawyer. The task raises difficult questions about how to reconcile competing obligations as an advocate and as an officer of the court. Individuals licensed to prosecute patent applications must decide how to honor both their obligations to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and their obligation to successfully prosecute patent applications. This burden can result in willful blindness, where the patent attorney or patent agent (“patent practitioner”) limits inquiry into information that may bar a patent application. The recent Federal Circuit opinion in Therasense may have eliminated the judicial “duty to inquire” doctrine that kept these obligations in balance. This Issue Brief argues that there is a need to protect against willful blindness and proposes a resurrection of the eliminated doctrines

Communications Biophysics

Contains research objectives and summary of research.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 PO1 GM14940-07)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 RO1 NS11000-01)Clarence J. LeBel FundNational Institutes of Health (Grant 1 RO1 NS10737-01)National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant NGL 22-009-304)Boston City Hospital Purchase Order 1176-21335B-D Electrodyne Division, Becton Dickinson and Company (Grant)Chicago Musical Instrument Company (Grant

The Resurrection of the Duty to Inquire After Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.

Balancing a duty to a tribunal and a duty to a client can paralyze a lawyer. The task raises difficult questions about how to reconcile competing obligations as an advocate and as an officer of the court. Individuals licensed to prosecute patent applications must decide how to honor both their obligations to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and their obligation to successfully prosecute patent applications. This burden can result in willful blindness, where the patent attorney or patent agent (“patent practitioner”) limits inquiry into information that may bar a patent application. The recent Federal Circuit opinion in Therasense may have eliminated the judicial “duty to inquire” doctrine that kept these obligations in balance. This Issue Brief argues that there is a need to protect against willful blindness and proposes a resurrection of the eliminated doctrines