Schor v. Abbott Laboratories

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing claims and holding that a “defendant may not be held hable for a violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act for increasing the price of its patented product, even though that price increase may affect competition in a second market”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).