Search for: "CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP."
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
Chimei Innolux Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (Oct. 3, 2011), the Ninth Circuit held that parens patriae actions filed by the state are not "class actions" within the meaning of CAFA. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 5:30 am
("Mondis") filed a patent infringement action against Chimei Innolux Corp. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
Chimei Innolux Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (Oct. 3, 2011). [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 1:27 pm
In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Respondents Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and Innolux Corp’s. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 2:51 pm
Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F. 3d 843 (9th Cir. 2011), held that attorney general enforcement actions are not “class actions” under CAFA, this suit was also barred, because parens patriae suits “lack the defining attributes of true class actions. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 9:48 am
Chimei Innolux Corp., No. 11–16862, 2011 WL 4543086 (9th Cir. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 5:00 am
Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2011), discussed in this blog post. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 2:58 pm
The Respondents in this investigation are: Chimei Innolux Corporation, Innolux Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., MStar Semiconductor, Inc., Qisda Corporation, Qisda American Corporation, Qisda (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., BenQ Corporation, BenQ America Corp., BenQ Latin America, and Realtek Semiconductor Corporation. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 9:53 am
By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC and the Respondents are Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Innolux Corp. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 8:14 pm
Although Respondents Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Innolux Corp. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 6:40 pm
According to the Notice of Investigation, the ITC has identified the following entities as respondents in this investigation: Chimei Innolux Corporation of Taiwan Innolux Corporation of Austin, Texas Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. of San Jose, California MStar Semiconductor, Inc. of Taiwan Qisda Corporation of Taiwan Qisda American Corporation of Irvine, California Qisda (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. of China BenQ Corporation of Taiwan BenQ America Corp. of Irvine,… [read post]
27 May 2011, 2:44 pm
According to the Order, Complainants Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC (collectively, “Thomson”) filed a motion to compel Respondents Chimei Innolux Corp., Innolux Corp., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 6:57 am
Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011), wherein it held that attorney general enforcement actions were not removable class actions under CAFA. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 2:08 pm
In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Respondents Chimei Innolux Corp., Innolux Corp., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 5:38 pm
By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC (collectively, “Thomson”), and the Respondents are Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Innolux Corp. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 5:48 am
Chimei Innolux Corp., 2011 WL 4543086 (9th Cir. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
Chimei Innolux Corp., 2011 U.S. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 4:00 am
Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842, 848 (9th Cir. 2011). [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 4:52 pm
According to Order No. 17C, Respondents Chimei InnoLux Corp., InnoLux Corp., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 3:19 pm
Chimei Innolux Corp. will appear in CCH Trade Regulation Reporter. [read post]
