Search for: "US v. Sales"
Results 201 - 220
of 22,375
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jul 2018, 11:23 am
The Supreme Court recently agreed to review Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 1:42 am
Usedsoft on the sale of used software licenses. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 6:30 am
In Capitol Records, LLC v. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 3:51 pm
On May 13, 2013 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Dan’s City Used Cars v. [read post]
11 Jan 2018, 7:11 am
Ohio’s manufacturing exemption is defined broadly to exempt from sales / use tax items purchased to be used in manufacturing, assembling, processing, or refining a product. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 8:48 am
Supreme Court in South Dakota v. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 9:40 pm
In a recurring classic example, Northeastern Pennsylvania Imaging Center v. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 9:31 am
LG Electronics, Inc., 533 US. 617 (2008) and Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 12:00 am
In an Opinion on August 14, 2013 (Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 11:59 am
Do all real estate deals have to be registered as securities or can exemptions to registration be used? [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 7:00 am
One of these is the South Dakota v. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 6:40 pm
Florida Dept. of Revenue v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 1:36 pm
Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 3:00 am
Standard Fire at Use in Practice in Arkansas Deaton v. [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 9:47 am
Contact us online or at (416) 863-0125. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 2:32 pm
Texas Sales and Use Tax Manufacturing Exemption Background Texas law exempts from sales and use tax certain items used in manufacturing and processing tangible personal property for sale to customers. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 12:20 pm
The Medicines Co (MedCo) v. [read post]
Bowman v Monsanto: the US Supreme Court rules on patent exhaustion and replication of patented seeds
14 May 2013, 2:09 pm
The Supreme Court noted that, under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, 'the initial authorised sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item' (Quanta Computer Inc. v LG Electronics Inc.): the rationale behind this rule is that, once a patentee has received his reward through the sale of the patented item, he has no further right to restrain the use or enjoyment of it (United States v Univis Lens Co.). [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 7:02 am
On June 21, 2012, in the case of Cullinane v. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 7:09 am
In a closely watched case directly addressing open questions after the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA), a unanimous Supreme Court (Thomas, J.) held in Helsinn v. [read post]
