Search for: "In Re INTUIT, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION"
Results 1 - 19
of 19
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Apr 2008, 9:03 am
See In re Fedders North American, Inc., Case No. 07-11176-BLS (Bankr. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 4:14 pm
In re Vantive Corp. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 10:57 am
" That's not analysis, that's rationalization.- The court goes with the dissent, not the majority opinion, in In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelity Leads Products Liability Litigation, 623 F.3d 1200 (8th Cir. 2010). [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 4:34 am
As noted in the seminal case, In re Caremark Int’l, Inc. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 12:08 am
Guest post by Professor Yeo Tiong Min, SC (honoris causa), Yong Pung How Chair Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (formerly known as Merck & Co, Inc) v Merck KGaA (formerly known as E Merck) [2021] 1 SLR 1102, [2021] SGCA 14 (“Merck”), noted previously, is a landmark case in Singapore private international law, being a decision of a full bench of the Court of Appeal setting out for the first time in… [read post]
12 Jan 2024, 10:20 am
The plaintiffs lost al of the framing cases then, but here we are in 2024, still litigating framing cases. [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 6:07 am
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994). [read post]
10 May 2010, 11:30 pm
An intuitive answer is that commercial disputes proliferate with economic contraction. [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 11:43 pm
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NEW PRIME INC. v. [read post]
Review of the Effects of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act on Third Party Participation Applicants
1 Feb 2012, 9:15 am
Further, the defendant must prove prior commercial use by clear and convincing evidence.[9] Lastly, any abandonment of use or use through derivation from the inventor negates the prior user rights.[10] What qualifies as commercial use is not intuitive and is broader than any prior user rights under the prior 35 U.S.C. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 12:00 am
Significantly, the court said that “The question is not what a lawyer would learn or intuit from researching case law, but what a reasonable person in [the official’s] position should know about the constitutionality of the conduct. [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 9:52 am
Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-956. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 1:33 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993). [read post]
23 Mar 2024, 5:31 am
Each matter is unique – and we’re not in the business of shilling for any particular software provider. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 4:45 am
In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation (Keller v. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 1:36 am
” It cites Basic Inc v Levinson (1988) for the proposition that “information is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in making an investment decision or if the information would significantly alter the total mix of information made available. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 8:29 pm
How can there be a “controversy,” one might wonder, if the parties are in alignment on the question they’re asking the Court to resolve? [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
”[71] Justice Arbour noted that, in explaining the standard to a jury, it might be preferable to re-word the standard of causation using positive terms, for example, a phrase such as a “‘significant contributing cause’ rather than using expressions phrased in the negative such as ‘not a trivial cause’ or ‘not insignificant’. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 9:30 am
I think such closed-mindedness is unfortunate and counterproductive, and if we don’t stop to understand what others are saying—even when we don’t like it—we’re doomed forever to talk past each other. [read post]
