Search for: "Information Acquisition Corp. v. Department of Justice"
Results 21 - 40
of 82
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2020, 12:25 pm
” (Citing Yamaha Corp of America v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 2:04 pm
In Luxottica Group SpA. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 3:57 pm
Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988). [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 7:15 am
He then claims that the TPP significantly departs from existing laws in ways that would have dire consequences for Canadian innovators. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 7:31 am
Things got so bad the Justice Department under the Bush Administration prepared a report, “Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act,” that claimed, in essence, that anti-monopoly law was so dead there was no point in the Justice Department even bothering to enforce it. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 11:31 am
This portion of the act was written in response to the ruling of Microsoft Corp. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 3:48 pm
Center For Biological Diversity, et al. v. [read post]
7 May 2020, 8:02 am
Department of Justice is to promote and protect competition in the American economy. [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 12:42 pm
Wednesday, February 5, 2020, at 2:30 p.m.: The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces and the Subcommittee on Readiness will hold a joint hearing on Navy and Marine Corps readiness in the Pacific. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 8:47 am
A selected Federal Government candidate will be assigned to the equivalent of Executive Schedule Level V. [read post]
28 Feb 2016, 4:09 pm
Surveillance and Information Gathering This week there have been more responses to Apple’s battle with the Department of Justice over whether the maker of the iPhone should write code to help the Department of Justice hack into the San Bernadino shooter’s phone. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 6:25 am
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986).Huff v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 7:08 am
A selected Federal Government candidate will be assigned to the equivalent of Executive Schedule Level V. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 3:45 am
A selected Federal Government candidate will be assigned to the equivalent of Executive Schedule Level V. [read post]
3 May 2010, 1:00 am
Corp., 63 NY2d, at 571, supra; see, Weinberger v UOP, Inc., 457 A2d 701, 713 [Del]). [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 12:12 pm
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: Senators Specter and Leahy express concern about ACTA Treaty (Techdirt) (Intellectual Property Watch) (IP Justice) (Michael Geist) (Public Knowledge) (Intellectual Property Watch) Commerce Department cites questionable stats, Chamber of Commerce uses them to ask Bush to sign PRO IP Bill into law (Techdirt)… [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
Neither, says the judge in patent and trade mark case Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK; Schutz UK Ltd, Schutz GmbH & Co KgAA v Delta Containers Ltd (PatLit) EWHC: RIM v Visto: Mr Justice Arnold takes charge (PatLit) Banking brand values plummet (IAM) United States US General Judd Gregg to be nominated as Secretary of Commerce (Inventive Step) (IP Watchdog) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Chicago Intellectual… [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 2:26 pm
.: The Center for Strategic and International Studies will host a briefing, Future of the Rule of Law, CICIG, and Justice Reform in Guatemala, featuring Representative Norma Torres (D-CA), and an expert panel including Brittany Benowitz, Ambassador William Brownfield, Leah Campos, Claudia Escobar, Peter Lamport and Mark L. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 7:45 am
Department of Justice (DOJ) released its decision[4] to close the investigation of three significant patent-based transactions: the acquisition of Motorola Mobility by Google, the acquisition of a large patent portfolio formerly held by Nortel Networks by “Rockstar Bidco” (a group including Microsoft, Apple, RIM and others), and the acquisition by Apple of certain Linux-related patents formerly held by Novell. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 10:13 am
Interestingly, as we discussed here, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is already on record questioning the need for some of these provisions in earlier proposed legislation. [read post]
