Search for: "FTC v. Standard Oil Co. of California"
Results 1 - 17
of 17
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Nov 2006, 4:00 pm
Union Oil had told the California Air Resources Board that the technology for production of the new standard was non-proprietary, but had then asserted its patents to force all refiners to use Union Oil's methods. [read post]
6 May 2022, 6:10 am
” Recognizing that the Sherman Act could be read to bar all contracts, federal courts for over a century have interpreted the 1890 antitrust law only to apply to “unreasonable” restraints of trade.[7] The Supreme Court first adopted this concept in its landmark 1911 decision in Standard Oil, upholding the lower court’s dissolution of John D. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 1:32 pm
Audiocast and some materials on the FTC website. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 1:52 pm
Roman v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 11:04 am
Also deceptive mailings: “Prize Notification Bureau” with “State of California Commisioners of Registration” seal—FTC v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 8:43 pm
Standard Oil Co. of California, 449 U.S. 232, 243 (1980), the Supreme Court held that the issuance of a complaint under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act was not a final agency action under the APA. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 2:00 am
Indian Harbor Insurance Co. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 9:55 am
” Brumfield v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 11:27 am
Food Settlements There was also a fair amount of class action settlement activity in California this month: Briseño v. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 9:48 am
FTC v. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 12:50 am
” Importantly, the ANPR also suggests that the rule could do more than just change the FTC’s enforcement tools and also seek to substantively change the standard that has long been applied in analyzing earnings and lifestyle claims. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 10:59 am
v. [read post]
15 Jul 2019, 5:01 am
" FTC v. [read post]
27 Aug 2011, 4:34 am
A relator cannot merely allege that a defendant violated a standard (in this case, with respect to radiology studies), but must allege that compliance with the standard was required to obtain payment. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
: Kelly and another v GE Healthcare Ltd (IP finance) (Mis)appropriation of Wii and PlayStation brands to name medical disorders (IPKat) Is regulation of trade mark attorneys necessary? [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 8:00 am
– Teva’s opposition proceedings regarding IL 130424 to Pfizer: (IP Factor), Thailand: Thai chief drug price negotiator removed from post: (GenericsWeb), Thailand: Compulsory licences cannot be revoked: (Generic Pharmaceuticals & IP), (more from Generic Pharmaceuticals & IP), UK: Court of Appeal for England and Wales hands down decision in Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG v Swingward Limited relating to repackaging and… [read post]
2 May 2008, 7:00 am
Landmark IP implications for universities: University of Western Australia v Gray: (IPRoo), (Managing Intellectual Property), (The Age), The latest edition of US Trade Representative’s ‘Special 301 Report’: (Ars Technica), (Ars Technica), (IAM), (Intellectual Property Watch), (Patry Copyright Blog), (Managing Intellectual Property), (Patent Docs), (IP Law360), Court rejects RIAA ‘making available’ theory: Atlantic v Howell:… [read post]
