Top Floor Home Improvements v. Panasonic Corporation et al
| Top Floor Home Improvements |
| Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America, KOA Corporation, KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Murata Electronics North America, Inc., ROHM Co. Ltd., Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Yageo Corporation and Yageo America Corporation |
| Chip-Tech Ltd. |
| 5:2015cv03907 |
| August 26, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Howard R. Lloyd |
| Ronald M. Whyte |
| Antitrust |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
20
ORDER re 8 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Relate Case filed by Chip-Tech Ltd.. Signed by Judge James Donato on 10/7/15. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2015)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO RELATE by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte. 15-CV-03868-JCS Chip-Tech, Ltd. v. AVX Corporation, 15-CV-03907-BLF Top Floor Home Improvements v. Panasonic Corporation and 15-CV-04042-HRL MakersLED LLC v. Panasonic Corporation RELATED to 15-CV-03820-RMW Microsystems Development Technologies, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation. Signed by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte on 9/18/2015. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2015)
|
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 California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
