Search for: "COOPER v. DOJ, et al"
Results 21 - 36
of 36
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Oct 2022, 5:01 am
The Holder Memo further emphasized the need for cooperation between criminal and civil prosecutors. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 1:55 pm
The indictment in U.S. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 3:00 am
Lupin Ltd. concerning LoSeasonique and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al v. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 7:52 am
That case is Wilson v. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 4:56 am
(GRAY on Claims) District Court E D Texas finds Applied Medical Resources liable for infringement of Covidien’s surgical device patent (Patent Docs) District Court E D Texas limits number of patent claims and prior art references asserted in case: SynQor, Inc v Artesyn Technologies, Inc et al (Docket Report) District Court W D Pennsylvania: Non-practising entity entitled to permanent injunction where infringed patent was the subject of prior exclusive license:… [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 6:31 am
”48 Werden et al. argue that the entire range of criminal sanctions must be available for convicted antitrust offenders, from corporate and individual fines to individual imprisonment. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
As a reminder, and as stated in Dhont v. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 9:40 am
Sessions, et al., the st [read post]
18 Jul 2009, 7:31 am
Khuzami also outlined organizational changes under consideration with a focus on making the Enforcement Division more “strategic, swift, smart and successful,” including: • creating specialized groups of attorneys along product, market or transactional lines and increasing collaboration among staff across regions; • flattening the management structure of the Division and reducing the… [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 12:50 pm
U.S. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 12:50 pm
U.S. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 9:01 pm
Ulrich Kranz et al. [read post]
9 Apr 2022, 3:01 am
Karen Bass et al. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 4:50 pm
Lohmus, Havel & Viisemann, et al in 2005. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 11:55 am
Commissioner Rosch v. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 9:45 am
This is designed to give the federal government time to investigate and decide whether it will take primary responsibility for litigating the case rather than have it exclusively handled by the whistle-blower’s private lawyers.[16] Broad pre-suit powers of investigation and discovery are conferred upon the Attorney General, including rights to obtain documents, take depositions and receive answers to interrogatories.[17] In the event that the case is taken over by the Justice Department, the… [read post]
