Search for: "AU Optronics" Results 101 - 120 of 177
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jan 2012, 1:24 pm by Eric Schweibenz
(“Samsung”) and Respondents AU Optronics Corporation (“AUO”), Acer America Corp. and Acer Inc. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 10:12 am by The Docket Navigator
AU Optronics Corporation, et. al., 6-11-cv-00011 (TXED July 12, 2012, Order) (Davis, J.). [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 1:38 pm by Jeffrey May
The sentencing follows a jury’s conviction in March 2012 of AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, and two high-level executives–Hsuan Bin Chen, and Hui Hsiung. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 6:37 am by Antitrust Today
  LG and AU Optronics have already announced they will appeal. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 6:00 am by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
The defendants named in the action are: AU Optronics Corporation; AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc.; Chi Mei Corporation; Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation; Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.; CMO Japan Co., Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; LG Display Co., Ltd.; LG Display America, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; … [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 12:52 pm by Jenna Greene
Among them: Samsung Electronics suing Apple Inc. over iPhones, iPods and iPads; AU Optronics Corp. suing Samsung and others over flat panel display devices – and Samsung suing AU over liquid crystal display devices; Honeywell International Inc. suing Furuno Electric Co. over GPS systems; and OSRAM GmbH suing LG Electronics Inc. over light-emitting diodes. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 2:44 pm by Joe Mullin
The defendants in that litigation include such companies as Philips and AU Optronics, which aren't in this chart (or in the smartphone business for that matter). [read post]
20 May 2012, 8:00 pm by Howard Ullman
 In related news, the recently convicted AU Optronics Corp. executive apparently intends to appeal his conviction on the basis that, among other things, the Sherman Act doesn’t reach the foreign activity at issue in his case. [read post]