Search Results:

 17-204 Apple Inc. v. Pepper (05/13/2019)
by independent developers under contracts with Apple. Apple charges the developers a $99 annual took a commission on each sale. Third, Apple’s theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic

 QPReport
indirect purchasers"). Electronic marketplaces such as Apple's App Store present a new wrinkle on alleging monopolization of distribution services Apple provides to app developers were necessarily

 QPReport
15-777 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. V. APPLE INC. DECISION BELOW: 786 F.3d 983 LIMITED TO QUESTION 2

 Granted & Noted List OT 2018 (Revised 3/23/23)
AND REMANDED (BK – no part) 17-204 CFX APPLE INC. V. PEPPER Court: USCA-9 Granted: 6/18/18 Argument

 Granted & Noted List October Term 2016 (As of June 26, 2017)
15-777* CFX SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. V. APPLE INC. Court: USCA-Fed. Granted: 3/21/16 Argument Date

 orig_141_report.pdf

 Journal October Term 2008
v. Joint Force Headquarters National Guard, et al. Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied. No. 07M74. Janet Francis, Petitioner v. Joint Force