Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that direct evidence must be “explicit”
• “[T]he existence of an independent financial motive to [change the standard] might be an independent reason for each Appellee company to support [the change].”
• “[T]he existence of an independent financial motive to [change the standard] might be an independent reason for each Appellee company to support [the change].”
• “To survive a motion for summary judgment [the plaintiff] must present evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the alleged conspirators acted independently.”
• “[T]he existence of an independent financial motive to [change the standard] might be an independent reason for each Appellee company to support [the change].”
• “Direct evidence explicitly refers to an understanding' between the alleged conspirators .... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).