Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { ?s ?p "United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that (1) when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and (2) ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, “[m]andatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at reasonable charges are recognized antitrust remedies.”"@en }
Showing triples 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 triples per page.
- United_States_v._Glaxo_Group_Ltd. abstract "United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that (1) when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and (2) ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, “[m]andatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at reasonable charges are recognized antitrust remedies.”".
- Q7893300 abstract "United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that (1) when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and (2) ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, “[m]andatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at reasonable charges are recognized antitrust remedies.”".
- United_States_v._Glaxo_Group_Ltd. comment "United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that (1) when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and (2) ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, “[m]andatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at reasonable charges are recognized antitrust remedies.”".
- Q7893300 comment "United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that (1) when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and (2) ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, “[m]andatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at reasonable charges are recognized antitrust remedies.”".