Merck & Co.‚ Inc. Case If one hold a key to resolve a very serious problem‚ one has a responsibility to put an effort to make it happen‚ at least try one’s best. In this case‚ river blindness disease was a very serious problem‚ and Dr. Vagelos was the one who could make a decision as to whether the research and development of a human version of ivermectin should be carried on‚ then it was his responsibility to pursue it. Caused by a parasitic worm carried by a tiny black fly‚ the disease
Premium Blindness Human Onchocerciasis
Exhibit 2a: | Capacity Analysis at Sportswear | | | | | | | Current Process‚ at 300 and 420 units per day | | | | | | | | | | | | | Operation | Time per Unit (seconds | Total Time per unit (seconds) | Workers Assigned | Daily Capacity (units) | Capacity Utilization | | | | | | | at 300 units/day | at 420 units/day | Cycle time/Operation (sec) | 1 | Lining Pressing | 20 | 20 | 1 | 536 | 56% | 78% | 47 | | Belt Looping | 5 | 5 | | 536 | 56% | 78% | 47 |
Premium Harshad number Capacity utilization Doctor Who
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115 Citation: D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115 Appeal from: Cancer Voices Australia v Myriad Inc [2013] FCA 65 Parties: YVONNE D’ARCY v MYRIAD GENETICS INC and GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED File number: NSD 359 of 2013 Judges: ALLSOP CJ‚ DOWSETT‚ KENNY‚ BENNETT & MIDDLETON JJ Date of judgment: 5 September 2014 Catchwords: PATENTS – Patent including claims for isolated nucleic
Premium Jury Supreme Court of the United States United States
The case about misappropriation of a trade secret that I researched is Best Buy Co. v. TechForward Inc. What happened was that Los Angeles-based TechForward sued Best Buy for misappropriating an original TechForward trade secret for the Best Buy “Guaranteed Buyback Program” (Star Tribune). The issue with the lawsuit involves what TechForward’s business does for its consumers. What they do (a much smaller business than Best Buy Co.) is calculate the buyback value of various consumer products such
Premium
Crown Awards‚ Inc. v. Discount Trophy & Co.‚ Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals‚ Second Circuit 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8540 (2009) Material Facts of the Case: Crown Awards is a retailer of awards and trophies sold through mail order catalogs and via the Internet. Crown designed and sold a diamond-shaped spinning trophy for which it owned two copyright registrations. Discount Trophy is one of Crown’s competitors‚ and it sold a trophy that was substantially similar to Crown’s Spin Trophy. Crown
Premium Copyright infringement Copyright
1) Citation Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co 248 N.Y. 339‚ 162 N.E. 99 (1928) Court of Appeals of New York 2) Key facts a. The plaintiff‚ Helen Palsgraf‚ was waiting for a train on a station platform. b. A man carrying a package was rushing to catch a train that was moving away from a platform across the tracks from Palsgraf. c. As the man attempted to jump aboard the moving train‚ he seemed unsteady and about to fall. d. A railroad guard on the car reached forward to grab him and another guard
Premium Plessy v. Ferguson New Orleans United States
Brief Kraft‚ Inc. v. Federal Trade Commissio Plaintiff/Appellant: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Defendant/Appellee: Kraft Inc. History: Federal Trade Commission instituted a deceptive advertising proceeding against Kraft Inc. Kraft was instructed to terminate certain ads due to false advertising. Facts: In March 1987‚ Kraft added a subscript on the television commercial and as a footnote in the print media version‚ the disclosure that “one ¾ ounces slice has 70% of the calcium of five ounces
Premium Marketing Kraft Foods United States
recommendation with both business and ethical reasons. The Entrepreneurs Ying Tsi and Daphne Cohen‚ as electrical engineers in a master’s program‚ co-developed a new wireless audio speaker system and upon graduation partnered with a business undergraduate from a well-known Boston area business school west of the city‚ to create a start-up company (Y&D Audio) to produce and sell this new system. Ying and Daphne decided to target their system to audiophiles and price the speaker system at $5‚000 expecting
Premium Warranty Revenue Income statement
Running head: Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 Case Brief of Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 October 4‚ 2014 Facts At approximately 2:30 in the afternoon‚ while patrolling a downtown beat in plain clothes‚ Detective McFadden observed two men (later identified as Terry and Chilton) standing on a street corner. The two men walked back and forth an identical route a total of 24 times‚ pausing to stare inside a store window. After the completion of walking the route‚ the two men would
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
CASE BRIEF FOR THE WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA 683 So. 2d 1021 (1994) Judicial History: Harvey Lee Windsor was convicted of capital murder under § 13-A-5-40 (a)(2)‚ Code of Alabama 1975. The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty and the trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. Windsor then appealed the conviction and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Facts: Harvey Lee Windsor and Lavon Gunthrie
Premium Court Jury Supreme Court of the United States