Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Kutt v. Apple Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv00081
Plaintiff:
Mers Kutt
Defendant:
Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
Kutt v. Apple, Inc. et al
as 3:2017cv00029
Plaintiff:
Mers Kutt
Defendant:
Apple, Inc., Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1126
Kutt v. Apple Inc. et al
as 3:2015cv00640
Plaintiff:
Mers Kutt
Defendant:
Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Company, LTD., Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1126
HOLTKAMP v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION et al
as 1:2007cv00167
Plaintiff:
LYNNE M. HOLTKAMP
Defendant:
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA, CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Stern v. AU Optronics Corp. et al
as 3:2007cv00108
Plaintiff:
Shawn Stern, Shawn Stern, Shawn Stern 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
Loomis v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al
as 3:2007cv00019
Plaintiff:
David Loomis, David Loomis, David Loomis and others
Defendant:
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Fujitsu America, Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Flanagan v. AU Optronics Corp., et al
as 3:2007cv00043
Plaintiff:
Donna Jeanne Flanagan
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
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.
