Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Mulvey et al v. AU Optronics Corp. et al
as 3:2007cv02937
Plaintiff:
Martha Mulvey
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corp. America, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Co., LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25 Clayton Act
Piscitello v. L.G. Philips LCD Co., Ltd. et al
as 3:2007cv02466
Plaintiff:
Joseph T. Piscitello and Joseph T. Piscitello
Defendant:
L.G. Philips LCD Co., Ltd., LG Philips LCD America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Nathan Muchnick, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation et al
as 3:2007cv02326
Plaintiff:
Nathan Muchnick, Inc., Nathan Muchnick, Inc. and Nathan Muchnick, Inc.
Defendant:
Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Watson v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
as 5:2007cv04033
Plaintiff:
James T Watson and James T Watson
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust
Mulvey v Au Optronics Corp., et al.
as 0:2007cv01425
Plaintiff:
Martha Mulvey, Martha Mulvey, Martha Mulvey and others
Defendant:
Au Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corp. America, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25 Clayton Act
FESER v. AU OPTRONICS CORP. et al
as 1:2007cv00424
Plaintiff:
GAIL FESER
Defendant:
AU OPTRONICS CORP., AU OPTRONICS CORP. AMERICA, CHI MEIOPTO ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25 Clayton Act
Martich v. AU Optronics Corp. America et al
as 5:2007cv00015
Plaintiff:
John Martich and John Martich
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corp. America, CHI MEI Optoelectronics Co., LTD., CHI MEI Optoelectronics USA, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
