Search for: "California Company v. Price" Results 661 - 680 of 1,498
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jan 2016, 11:55 am by Eric Goldman
Trademarks * The California Supreme Court denied review in Ison v. [read post]
1 Jun 2013, 2:03 pm by Florian Mueller
Those aren't California-based, which is where most of the venture capital action in the U.S. is (Sand Hill Road). [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am by Bexis
  By itself, off-label promotion is no more causal than, as we commented the other day, a “video of a company employee kicking his dog. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 4:03 pm
Bell (07-8521), on whether a poor individual on death row who has a federally funded defense lawyer may use that lawyer’s aid in seeking clemency from a state’s governor, and Pacific Bell v. linkLine Communications (07-512), on the validity of the antitrust theory of a “price squeeze” — that is, a company policy of setting high prices at wholeale but then low prices on its own retail sales to undercut… [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 5:45 am by Guest Author for TradeSecretsLaw.com
California, Illinois, Colorado, Florida, and Massachusetts rounded out the top 50%, each with between 6% and 9% of total cases. [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 6:24 am by Richard Hunt
At least some lower California courts have agreed, but in Martinez v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 10:59 am by Lisa Solomon
(TR Legal, Westlaw Pricing Guide For Private Price Plans (Apr. 2010)). * * * Suppose you are a California attorney. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 7:21 am
That provision exempts from liability any cable recipient who is authorized by a cable company to receive a transmission. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 4:01 pm by Venkat Balasubramani
Facebook California Supreme Court Rules That a ZIP Code is Personal Identification Information — Pineda v. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 1:15 am by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court’s June 2010 decision in the Morrison v. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
We also provide an update on the status of mandatory federal forum provisions in the Ninth and Seventh Circuits and in the State of California. [read post]