Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Bates v. AU Optronics Corp. et al
as 1:2007cv10948
Plaintiff:
Heidi Bates
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corp.America;, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Co.,LTD and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Sullivan v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al
as 1:2007cv10625
Plaintiff:
Bruce Sullivan, Bruce Sullivan and Bruce Sullivan
Defendant:
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Fujitsu America, Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
RONCO v. AU OPTRONICS CORP et al
as 1:2007cv00033
Plaintiff:
PATRICIA RONCO
Defendant:
AU OPTRONICS CORP, AU OPTRONICS CORP AMERICA, CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CO LTD and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
Cintron v. AU Optronics Corp. et al
as 3:2007cv01198
Plaintiff:
Oscar Cintron
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corp. America, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Co., LTD and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
IMCA, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. et al
as 3:2007cv01199
Plaintiff:
IMCA, Inc.
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corp. America, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Co., LTD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust
Allen v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al
as 1:2007cv10460
Plaintiff:
James Allen
Defendant:
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Fujitsu America, Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25 Clayton Act
Carrillo v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al
as 3:2007cv01179
Plaintiff:
Carlos R. Carrillo
Defendant:
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Fujitsu America, Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
CLARKE v. CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION et al
as 1:2007cv00008
Plaintiff:
SCOTT L CLARKE
Defendant:
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, FUJITSU AMERICA INC, FUJITSU LIMITED INC and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25 Clayton Act
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.
