Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, 551 U.S. 308 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995's requirement of scienter in a civil action in apply to Tellabs and Makor Issues & Rights. [1]
Tellabs, Inc. is a global network technology company that provides networking and communications solutions to both private and governmental agencies. [2] The company offers a range of products and services, including optical transport systems, access systems, managed access solutions, and network management software.
In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California 11-cv-2509 [10]) is a class-action lawsuit on behalf of over 64,000 employees of Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm (the last two are subsidiaries of Disney) against their employer alleging that their wages were ...
(Reuters) -A license dispute between Arm Holdings and Qualcomm went before a jury on Thursday after attorneys from both sides completed closing arguments. The jury in a U.S. federal court in ...
You should also use a person’s full name when addressing an envelope. But including a person’s title for a holiday card isn’t a requirement, according to Senning, especially if the person is ...
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy aim to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget by July 4, 2026. They've said they'll fire federal employees, "delete" agencies, and publicize all of their work.
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the application of U.S. antitrust law to "tying" arrangements of patented products. [1]
Avanti was a defendant in a long-running legal battle with Cadence Design Systems, of which BusinessWeek said "The Avant! case is probably the most dramatic tale of white-collar crime in the history of Silicon Valley." In this case, Cadence and the district attorney claimed that Avanti was founded on stolen Cadence code, and Avanti denied it.