Legal Opinion

In Re Apple & AT & TM Antitrust Litigation

District Court, N.D. California

Decided October 1, 2008No. C 07-05152 JWPublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AT & TM’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS; DENYING DEFENDANT AT & TM’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS

JAMES WARE, District Judge.

J. INTRODUCTION

In the cellular telephone market, it has become a common practice for an equipment manufacturer and a voice and data supply company to join together to introduce a new cellular telephone to the market. Often, to obtain a particular model of telephone at a given price from a given manufacturer, purchasers must sign a contract with the joined service…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  3. Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Tietsworth v. SearsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2010
  2. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
  3. Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2012
  4. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
  5. Webb v. Carter's Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2011

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API