Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis Co.,Ltd. et al

Defendant: Mobis Alabama, L.L.C. and Hyundai Mobis Co.,Ltd.
Plaintiff: Autoliv ASP, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2013cv00141
Filed: March 4, 2013
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Myron H. Thompson
Referring Judge: Wallace Capel
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis Co.,Ltd. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mobis Alabama, L.L.C.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Hyundai Mobis Co.,Ltd.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Autoliv ASP, Inc.
Represented By: Wesley Cameron Achey
Represented By: Keith Edward Broyles
Represented By: Stephanie Chu
Represented By: Patrick Ladd Wheeler Sefton
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.