Cases 11 - 20 of 297
In re: Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corporation, et al
as 20-16691
Petitioner / Appellant:
STEVEN HARRELSON, WALKER, WARREN & WATKINS, LLC, DONNA MUCCINO and others
Defendant / Appellee:
TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC, PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, SAMSUNG SDI (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS
Not Classified By Court:
In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corporation, et al
as 20-16081
Defendant / Appellee:
TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC, PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, SAMSUNG SDI (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS
Not Classified By Court:
In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Petitioner / Appellant:
THE ESTATE OF BARBARA CALDWELL, ANTHONY GIANASCA, CAROLYN JORGENSEN and others
Ericsson Inc. et al v. D-Link Corporation et al
as 6:2010cv00473
Not Classified By Court:
Robert W Faulkner, David Folsom and Gale R Peterson
Plaintiff:
Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Defendant:
D-Link Corporation, D-Link Systems, Inc., Netgear, Inc. and others
Intervenor:
Intel Corporation
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corporation, et al
as 20-15697
Petitioner / Appellant:
HARRY GARAVANIAN, CHRIS SEUFERT, KERRY MURPHY and others
Defendant / Appellee:
TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC, PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, SAMSUNG SDI (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS
Not Classified By Court:
In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, et al v. Irico Group Corporation, et al
as 19-17428
Plaintiff / Appellee:
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS and DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS
Defendant:
SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD., THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, INC., SAMSUNG SDI BRASIL LTDA. and others
Not Classified By Court:
In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Defendant / Appellant:
IRICO GROUP CORPORATION and IRICO DISPLAY DEVICES CO., LTD.
Farris et al v. 3M Company et al
as 4:2018cv04186
Defendant:
IMO INDUSTRIES, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to DELAVAL TURBINE, INC.), BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC individually and as successor-in-interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, VIGOR INDUSTRIAL LLC (individually and as successor-in-interest to TODD SHIPYARD CORPORATION) and others
Plaintiff:
MELVA FARRIS and GARY FARRIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Micron Technology, Inc.
as 18-1578
Defendant / Appellee:
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING INTERNATIONAL (SHANGHAI) CORP., SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING INTERNATIONAL (BEIJING) CORPORATION, UNITED MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS LLC
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation et al v. Hitachi Ltd. et al
as 1:2018cv04879
Defendant:
Irico Group Corporation, Samsung SDI Co., LTD., Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD. and others
Plaintiff:
Edward Breivik, ABC Appliance, Inc., P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation and others
Special Master:
Honorable Charles A. Legge
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al
as 1:2017cv03409
Defendant:
Samtel Color, LTD., Irico Group Corporation, Samsung SDI Co., LTD. and others
Plaintiff:
Office Depot, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation et al v. Hitachi Ltd. et al
as 1:2017cv02368
Defendant:
Irico Group Corporation, Samsung SDI Co., LTD., Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD. and others
Plaintiff:
Edward Breivik, ABC Appliance, Inc., P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation and others
Special Master:
Honorable Charles A. Legge
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.
