Search for: "Price v. Mann" Results 1 - 20 of 112
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2020, 9:40 am by Dennis Crouch
Mann Foundation & Advanced Bionics v. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 10:29 pm by Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Selling less means higher prices. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 8:33 am by Dennis Crouch
His evidence went only to show the cost of the whole mop, and the price at which it was sold. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 8:08 am by Alessandro Cerri
These facts were borne from evidence which the High Court was entitled to accept; andOn due cause, the Court found (with some difficulty) that there was no error of law or principle in the High Court judge applying Julius Sämann Ltd v Tetrosyl Ltd [2006] EWHC 529 (Ch), in which Kitchin J had observed that the test for showing due cause is "relatively stringent" - in other words it is not enough to show that a sign has been innocently adopted, there must be something… [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 10:20 am by Geoffrey Manne
Indeed, the issue may go beyond a simple pricing dispute. [read post]
22 Apr 2018, 4:31 pm by INFORRM
The high profile privacy and data protection case of Sir Cliff Richard v BBC continued before Mann J this week. [read post]
29 Nov 2020, 4:13 pm by INFORRM
As already mentioned, on 26 and 27 November 2020 Mann J heard another CMC in the phone hacking case of Various Claimants v MGN Ltd. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 6:10 am by Amy Howe
Briefly: At Balkinization, Zach Price weighs in on Puerto Rico v. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 9:17 pm by Josh Wright
The whole idea that they are “price theorists,” when price theory refers to the neoclassical model of perfect competition, is silly. [read post]
15 Jul 2018, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
On Wednesday 18 July 2018, Mr Justice Mann will hand down his eagerly awaited reserved judgment the case of Sir Cliff Richard v BBC. [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 9:58 pm
On Monday, in Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS, a patent validity dispute, Mr Justice Mann (Patents Court, England and Wales) was informed that the dispute -- involving the validity of three patents -- was highly price sensitive. [read post]