Cases 1 - 10 of 10
State of Utah et al v. Google LLC et al
as 3:2021cv05227
Plaintiff:
State of Utah, State of New York, State of North Carolina and others
Defendant:
Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commercial Limited and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2021md02981
Defendant:
Alphabet Inc., Google Payment Corp., Google Commerce Limited and others
Plaintiff:
Jared Stark, Ashly Esquivel, Robert Wing and others
Counter Defendant:
Epic Games, Inc., Match Group, LLC and Humor Rainbow, Inc.
Counter Claimant:
Google LLC and Google Asia Pacific PTE. Limited
Not Classified By Court:
Activision Blizzard, Inc., Niantic, Inc., Big Fish Games and others
Amicus Curiae:
American Antitrust Institute and Economists Supporting Dr. Rysman as Proposed Amici
3Rd Party Defendant:
Riot Games, Inc.
Interested Party:
Valve Corporation, Nintendo of America Inc., Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit and others
Petitioner:
Amazon.com LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
State of Alabama et al v. Endo International PLC, et al
as 3:2019cv04157
Plaintiff:
State of Arkansas, State of Minnesota, State of Maryland and others
Defendant:
Endo Pharmaceutical Inc., Endo international PLC. and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1337
State of California et al v. Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. et al
as 3:2018cv00675
Plaintiff:
State of California , State of Alabama , State of Arkansas and others
Defendant:
Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. and Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2014md02521
Plaintiff:
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund and others
Defendant:
Teikoku Pharma USA, Teikoku Seiyaku Co, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc and others
Not Classified By Court:
All Parties, Express Scripts, Inc., Caremark, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
The State of California et al v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al
as 3:2012cv05231
Plaintiff:
The State of California , The State of Arizona , The State of Arkansas and others
Defendant:
Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi America, Ltd.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
The State of California by its Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and the City and County of San Francisco Ex Rel Dennis J. Herrera, The County of Santa Clara, and Los Angeles Unified School District o et al v. Toshiba Corporation et al
as 3:2012cv05230
Plaintiff:
The State of California by its Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and the City and County of San Francisco Ex Rel Dennis J. Herrera, The County of Santa Clara, and Los Angeles Unified School District o , The State of Arizona by its Attorney GeneralTom Horne , The State of Arkansas by its Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and others
Defendant:
Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
The State of California et al v. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation et al
as 3:2012cv05229
Plaintiff:
The State of California , The State of Arizona , The State of Arkansas and others
Defendant:
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
State of California et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
as 4:2007cv01347
Plaintiff:
State of California, State of Alaska, State of Arizona and others
Defendant:
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
State of California et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
as 3:2007cv01347
Plaintiff:
State of California, State of Alaska, State of Arizona and others
Defendant:
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
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.
