Search for: "Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois"
Results 81 - 98
of 98
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Sep 2008, 12:12 pm
Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action under the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 6:13 pm
Nine years later, in Illinois Brick v. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 6:13 pm
Nine years later, in Illinois Brick v. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 4:02 pm
In Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 7:52 pm
" Applying Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 3:34 am
Today's ruling extended the Illinois Brick rule -- which gets its name from Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 9:39 pm
Blawgletter found the issue interesting -- so much so that we co-wrote an amicus brief pro bono for the States of Connecticut, Arizona, Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 6:13 pm
DVSS brought a motion in the district court to dismiss Bamberg's claims on the grounds that, because Bamberg did not obtain its products directly from J & J, it lacked standing to pursue antitrust claims based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 6:13 pm
DVSS brought a motion in the district court to dismiss Bamberg's claims on the grounds that, because Bamberg did not obtain its products directly from J & J, it lacked standing to pursue antitrust claims based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 12:46 am
Supreme Court held in Illinois Brick v. [read post]
2 May 2008, 3:02 am
Apr. 30, 2008), the court considered the question of who qualifies as a "direct purchaser" of products under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2008, 3:56 pm
Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919). [read post]
22 Mar 2008, 2:00 am
: (IPBiz),US: Two remaining challenged WARF embryonic stem cell patents upheld in ex parte reexamination: (Holman's Biotech IP Blog), Pharma & Biotech - ProductsAricept (Donepezil) – USV wins appeal against USPTO decision: (Spicy IP),Celerex (Celecoxib) – CAFC decision in Celebrex patents dispute between Pfizer and Teva will cut patent term by one and a half years: (Patent Baristas), Inersan – Ranbaxy in-licenses Inersan to CD Pharma to market in India and… [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 3:45 pm
Miles Medical Co. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 6:17 pm
As a result, the class of retail purchasers were "indirect purchasers" and so were precluded from bringing that claim under the Supreme Court's decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 6:02 pm
Defendants claim that plaintiffs' damages experts failed to distinguish between transactions in which plaintiffs were "first purchasers" of copper and indirect purchases by plaintiffs that cannot provide a basis for recovery under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2006, 8:06 am
The Court analogized Paycom's position to that of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2005, 7:10 pm
The Vioxx VerdictsThe legal community is still abuzz about the $253 million verdict against Merck & Co., Inc. [read post]
