Search for: "United States v. Price" Results 141 - 160 of 5,790
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Sep 2010, 10:03 am by Sheppard Mullin
In 2007, the United States Supreme Court, updating the application of the cumulative advances in antitrust economics as applied to vertical restraint cases, overruled the venerable Dr. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 2:20 pm
Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Baker v. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 11:24 am by Jaclyn Belczyk
United States [SCOTUSblog materials] in favor of a veteran-owned business in a challenge against the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) [official website]. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 8:21 am by Steven Wildberger
In 2006, Congress passed a bill that states the VA "shall" award contracts to veteran-owned small businesses if at least two such businesses bid on the work at a fair price. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 9:59 pm by Patent Docs
By Andrew Williams -- United States District Judge Seeborg of the Northern District of California denied Amgen's motion for a preliminary injunction today in the Amgen v. [read post]
12 Oct 2015, 11:17 am by Thaddeus Hoffmeister
We often lament “the vanishing trial” in the United States. [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 6:58 am by skelly
On December 10th, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Rutledge v. [read post]
19 Dec 2009, 2:01 pm by admin
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Beach Renourishment v. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 3:44 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:11-cv-02075). [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 5:23 pm
The Ninth Circuit had to determine whether Centerprise's claim, that higher prices in the United States caused its foreign injury because defendants could not have raised prices worldwide without fixing prices in the United States, satisfied the domestic injury exception. [read post]
14 May 2010, 4:30 am
After remand from the Federal Circuit, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that, due to the penal nature of the false marking statute, the appropriate penalty for marking a product with an incorrect or invalid patent number should be assessed at the maximum price the articles were sold, rather than the profit margin or economic benefit to the defendant. [read post]