HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc. v. Shenzhen Vivibright Micro Display Technology Co.
Plaintiff:
HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc.
Defendant:
Shenzhen Vivibright Micro Display Technology Co.
Case Number:
2:2018cv00054
Filed:
January 10, 2018
Court:
Nevada District Court
Office:
Las Vegas Office
Referring Judge:
Cam Ferenbach
Presiding Judge:
Andrew P. Gordon
Nature of Suit:
Trademark
Cause of Action:
15:1114 Trademark 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 Nevada 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
| Search for this case: HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc. v. Shenzhen Vivibright Micro Display Technology Co. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Michael J. McCue |
| Represented By: | Meng Zhong |
| 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: Shenzhen Vivibright Micro Display Technology Co. | |
| 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.
