Search for: "Wills v. Price"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,920
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Sep 2023, 8:16 am
Unlike in FTC v. [read post]
15 Sep 2023, 10:26 am
Here’s the Wall Street Journal under the demure title, “U.S. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2023, 8:00 am
This shows that Nokia is paying a significant price for its protracted dispute with OPPO. [read post]
10 Sep 2023, 5:59 pm
See Cygnus Opportunity Fund, LLC v. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 4:06 am
This is the final part of this Kat’s analysis on Interdigital v Lenovo FRAND judgment [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat). [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 3:00 am
—Confucius 1Port Murray Dairy Co. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2023, 5:39 am
The court also clarified that “fair market value” (which is not defined in the MVRISA), is “the highest price which a hypothetical willing buyer would pay to a hypothetical willing seller in an assumed free and open market. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 5:03 am
" Thereafter, the price goes up to $32. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 11:02 am
” City of Detroit v. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 8:08 am
Sometimes external environment-level innovation is more efficient: ramps v. stair climing wheelchairs. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 2:13 am
The IPKat is pleased to host the following guest post by Katfriend Alessandro Cerri regarding the recent judgment of the High Court of England and Wales in the Lifestyle Equities v Berkshire Polo trade mark dispute. [read post]
30 Jul 2023, 6:25 am
Many implementers will be tempted to ask the Controller of Patents to define a reasonable royalty if they consider the offer not to be FRAND.In this regard, the Controller of Patents has way less margin than competition authorities or courts to evaluate anticompetitive concerns beyond pure pricing issues (as it is customary in the European Union and UK).Despite its flaws, the willing licensee/licensor test created by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Huawei v… [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 4:14 am
” Section 1, in turn, specifies a price of $100, payable within six months. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 8:46 am
Tershakovec v. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 10:48 am
Zimmerman v. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 7:09 am
ML Genius v. [read post]
11 Jul 2023, 11:43 am
Nine years after Bakke, McCleskey v. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 5:00 am
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal case, VanSickle Estate v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 4:33 pm
We have leaders willing and able to bring cases. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 12:52 am
The Court referred to the principles set out in General Tire v Firestone Tyre regarding the assessment of “negotiating damages”, namely damages reflecting the sum that would have been agreed between a willing licensor and a willing licensee.In applying General Tire, the Court found that the hypothetical negotiations need to be set in the market as it exists, taking into account the commercial realities of the specific situation. [read post]
