Cases 1 - 10 of 27
Inventist Inc. v. Ninebot Inc. (USA)
as 24-1267
Plaintiff / Appellant:
INVENTIST INC. and SHANE CHEN
Defendant / Appellee:
NINEBOT INC. (USA), dba Ninebot US Inc., NINEBOT (TIANJIN) TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. and NINEBOT INC. (CHINA)
China Cornici Co., Ltd. et al v. United States
as 1:2023cv00216
Plaintiff:
China Cornici Co., Ltd. and RaoPing HongRong Handicrafts Co., Ltd. doing business as Chen Chui Global Corp.
Defendant:
United States
China Cornici Co., Ltd. et al v. United States
as 1:2023cv00217
Plaintiff:
China Cornici Co., Ltd. and RaoPing HongRong Handicrafts Co., Ltd. doing business as Chen Chui Global Corp.
Defendant:
United States
Inventist Inc. v. Ninebot Inc. (USA)
as 24-1010
Plaintiff / Appellee:
INVENTIST INC. and SHANE CHEN
Defendant / Appellant:
NINEBOT INC. (USA), dba Ninebot US Inc., NINEBOT (TIANJIN) TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. and NINEBOT INC. (CHINA)
CHEN et al v. USA
as 1:2023cv01401
Plaintiff:
BEILEI CHEN, LIN YING HU, Bo Meng and others
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
YU et al v. USA
as 1:2023cv01292
Plaintiff:
ALAN ZHIHUAI YU, YING ZHAO, ANNIE DANZHAI HU and others
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
CHEN v. USA
as 1:2023cv01227
Plaintiff:
JUN CHEN
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
CHEN v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
as 1:2023vv00507
Petitioner:
DAI CHEN
Respondent:
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 300 Vaccine Injury Act
Jones-Bey v. Chen
as 22-2019
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SISTER E. JONES-BEY
Defendant / Appellee:
PAMELA K. CHEN, MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, LETITIA JAMES and others
Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. v. Topcon Medical Systems, Inc.
as 21-1839
Defendant:
MICHAEL CHEN, JOSEPH CICCANESI, TERRY KEITH BROCK and others
Defendant / Appellant:
TOBIAS KURZKE, TOPCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. and TOPCON HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Plaintiff / Appellee:
CARL ZEISS MEDITEC, INC.
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.
