In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (Dram)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
546 F.3d 981 (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. USA;…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited16 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
- In Re Elevator Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by131 opinions
- Lotes Co. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2017
- Loren Shirk v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State GrangeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
126 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.