Cases 101 - 110 of 761
Neco Alliance LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
as 1:2014cv05831
Defendant:
NEC LCD Technologies LTD, NEC Corporation of America, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation and others
Plaintiff:
Neco Alliance LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Consolidated Work Station Computing, LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al
as 1:2014cv07983
Plaintiff:
Consolidated Work Station Computing, LLC
Defendant:
Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd. and Hitachi Data Systems Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Sharp Electronics Corporation, et al v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al
as 14-16817
:
In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff - Appellee:
DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS
Defendant - Appellee:
HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI AMERICA, LTD., HITACHI ASIA, LTD. and others
The Indirect Purchaser Settlem, et al v. Samsung Electronics Company Lt, et al
as 14-16412
:
In re: DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellee:
THE INDIRECT PURCHASER SETTLEMENT CLASS and THE GOVERNMENT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF CLASSES
Objector - Appellant:
SHANNON CASHION, W. CHRISTOPHER MCDONOUGH and KELLY KRESS
Defendant - Appellee:
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY LTD., WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG and others
The Indirect Purchaser Settlem, et al v. Samsung Electronics Company Lt, et al
as 14-16361
:
In re: DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellee:
THE INDIRECT PURCHASER SETTLEMENT CLASS and THE GOVERNMENT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF CLASSES
Objector - Appellant:
DAVID C. MARLOW
Defendant - Appellee:
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY LTD., WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG and others
The Indirect Purchaser Settlem, et al v. Samsung Electronics Company Lt, et al
as 14-16364
:
In re: DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellee:
THE INDIRECT PURCHASER SETTLEMENT CLASS and THE GOVERNMENT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF CLASSES
Objector - Appellant:
BARBARA COCHRAN, JAMES GLASE and BRYAN MARCUS
Defendant - Appellee:
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY LTD., WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG and others
The Indirect Purchaser Settlem, et al v. Samsung Electronics Company Lt, et al
as 14-16360
:
In re: DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellee:
THE INDIRECT PURCHASER SETTLEMENT CLASS and THE GOVERNMENT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF CLASSES
Objector - Appellant:
NORMAN D. PALMER and ESTATE OF FERN COOK
Defendant - Appellee:
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY LTD., WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG and others
The Indirect Purchaser Settlem, et al v. Samsung Electronics Company Lt, et al
as 14-16342
:
In re: DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellee:
THE INDIRECT PURCHASER SETTLEMENT CLASS and THE GOVERNMENT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF CLASSES
Objector - Appellant:
SEAN KENNETH HULL, RAYMOND FRANCIS CAMPBELL and SUPEROXYGEN, INC.
Defendant - Appellee:
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY LTD., WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG and others
Motor Generator - Dealership Actions
as 2:2013cv01502
Plaintiff:
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. , Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc. , McGrath Automotive Group, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Hitachi, Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25
Crago et al v. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation et al
as 3:2014cv02058
Plaintiff:
Crago , Arch Electronics, Inc , Meijer, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation , Technicolor USA, Inc., Technicolor SA and others
Miscellaneou:
Samsung SDI America, Inc., Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. and others
Pecial_master:
Vaughn R. Walker
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
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.
