Legal Opinion
In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 14, 2008No. 06-15636PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
538 F.3d 1107 (2008)
In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
Centerprise International, Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Micron Technology, Inc.; Micron Semiconductor Products Inc.; Crucial Technology, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Mosel-Vitelic, Inc.; Mosel-Vitelic Corporation (USA); Infineon Technologies, AG; Infineon Technologies North America Corp.; Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc.; Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.; Elpida Memory, Inc.; Elpida Memory, (USA) Inc.; NEC Electronics America, Inc.; Nanya Technology Corp.; Nanya Technology Corp.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Love v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Caribbean Broadcasting System, Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLCCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (Dram)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig.District Court, S.D. California · 2018
- Centerprise International, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Centerprise International v. Micron Technology, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008