Search for: "GEORGIA PACIFIC CORP" Results 21 - 40 of 205
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 May 2013, 12:05 pm by Docket Navigator
The Court has reviewed [the expert's] opinion and his asserted bases for it and concludes he utilizes the proper methodology set forth in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2007, 10:51 pm
Circuit Court of Appeals, Georgia Pacific Corp. v. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 6:22 am
As such, the judge entered a cross-claim judgment against Georgia-Pacific, to be paid to Ford. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 11:00 am
Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies are on the ground in American Samoa. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 9:03 am
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued that day in a case captioned Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. von Drehle Corp. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 7:33 am by Docket Navigator
[His] opinion is, in essence, (i) the application of Georgia-Pacific factors, followed by (ii) the application of a 50/50 split, derived from the NBS. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 11:30 pm
Targanta to lay off 75 percent of staff Employees laid off at FiveRuns Corp. [read post]
17 May 2012, 9:04 pm by Charles Bieneman
Turning to the issue of relevance, the court considered High Point’s argument that Sprint’s VoIP agreements were “relevant to the determination of a reasonable royalty under” some of the factors set forth in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 6:22 am by Donald B. Brenner
The suit names subsidiaries of the Miami-based home builder, Lennar Corp., and drywall manufacturers, Georgia-Pacific Corp. of Atlanta, Georgia as defendants. [read post]
30 Jun 2007, 4:29 am
  The product is sold under several brands including PACIFIC, Dentakleen, BrightMax, DentaPro, Dentakleen Junior and EVERFRESH. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 8:02 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
The CAFC cited Georgia-Pacific:To support his royalty calculation, Wagner adjusted the baseline royalty rate of ($96) using the factors set out in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. [read post]