Search for: "AU Optronics Corp" Results 101 - 120 of 122
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Nov 2010, 9:23 pm by Mike
AU Optronics Corp. is a piece of a massive class action antitrust case. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 10:00 am
AU Optronics, Corp., 134 S.Ct. 736 (2014), so this court follows suit. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 11:11 am by Sean Wajert
AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161, 173–74, 134 S.Ct. 736, 187 L.Ed.2d 654 (2014). [read post]
29 May 2013, 7:51 am by Allison Trzop
AU Optronics Corp., in which the Court will clarify the authority of state governments to sue in state courts to protect their residents from alleged price fixing; Kent Scheidegger also covers the Rosemond grant at Crime and Consequences. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 6:31 am
My colleague, Beth Farmer has written an excellent analysis of the value of criminal penalties under competition or antitrust laws, "Real Crime: Criminal Competition Law" which she will present at the American Bar Association Criminal Law Section's Sixth Annual Fall Institute to be held in Washington D.C., Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2013. [read post]
AU Optronics Corp., 134 S.Ct. 736 (2014) (holding parens patriae action filed by state’s attorney general was not mass action under CAFA); Standard Fire Ins. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 10:01 pm by Marie Louise
Ozimals (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) US Copyright Group – No bluff: Far Cry P2P lawsuits revived, refiled cross-country (ArsTechnica) XPAYS – BitTorrent users sued for sharing Paris Hilton’s sex tape (TorrentFreak) Zoffa LLC – UFC files lawsuit against Justin.tv for illegal PPV streams (Plagiarism Today) US Trade Marks & Domain Names – Lawsuits and strategic steps Microsoft – Inducement to contribute to infringe … to roll on: Microsoft… [read post]
AU Optronics Corp., 134 S.Ct. 736 (2014), where the United States Supreme Court rejected the theory that CAFA’s definition of a mass action included unnamed persons who were real parties in interest. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 12:59 pm
AU Optronics Corp., 134 S.Ct. 736 (2014), that AG actions couldn’t be removed under CAFA. [read post]