Search for: "United States v. Procter & Gamble Co."
Results 1 - 20
of 65
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Dec 2023, 7:16 pm
Not only was the statement wrong in 1993, when the Supreme Court decided the famous Daubert case, it was wrong 20 years later, in 2013, when the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Diclegis, a combination of doxylamine succinate and pyridoxine hydrochloride, the essential ingredients in Bendectin, for sale in the United States, for pregnant women experiencing nausea and vomiting.[16] The return of Bendectin to the market, although under… [read post]
7 Aug 2023, 9:12 pm
Procter & Gamble Co., 386 U.S. 568, 575 (1967). [read post]
23 Jul 2023, 9:01 pm
FTC Chair Lina Khan previewed this in June, stating that “The word ‘efficiency’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the antitrust statutes. [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 5:01 am
Postmaster Gen. of United States (6th Cir. 2019) ("Harm to reputation is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access…"); Procter & Gamble Co. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 4:13 am
NLRB v. [read post]
4 Feb 2022, 2:29 pm
Procter & Gamble (1967) that “[p]ossible economies cannot be used as a defense to illegality. [read post]
15 Mar 2021, 5:58 pm
” United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 10:13 am
In any event, under the federal RICO statute (as opposed to the analogous state RICO statutes) showing perjury in a state court proceeding will not be enough to state a valid claim. [read post]
14 May 2019, 11:24 am
” Procter &Gamble Co. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 12:21 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 6:58 am
The Procter & Gamble Co., March 30, 2018, Williams, K.). [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 10:20 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 2:26 pm
Procter & Gamble Co. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 496, 502-503.) [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 1:36 am
O’Malley (Judge, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, USA) explained that currently, there were three avenues to challenge patents in the United States – through the District Courts up to the CAFC, through the International Trade Commission, and through the USPTO Patent and Trademark Appeal Boards (PTAB) to the CAFC. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 10:52 am
Procter & Gamble Co. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 10:52 am
Procter & Gamble Co. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 10:52 am
Procter & Gamble Co. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 5:52 am
Procter & Gamble Co. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 5:56 am
On May 26, 2015, the Solicitor General’s office responded to the United States Supreme Court’s Oct. 14, 2014 invitation for the government’s views on the certioraripetition filed in Athena Cosmetics, Inc. v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
As of the time of trial, the state of the art did not include a genetic marker for SJS/TEN. [read post]
