AT & T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
The district court has certified to us pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) “the question whether the application of California antitrust law to claims against defendants based on purchases that occurred outside California would violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.” Because the underlying conduct in this case involves not just the indirect purchase of price-fixed goods, but also the conspiratorial conduct that led to the sale of those goods, we answer in the negative. To the extent a defendant’s conspiratorial conduct is sufficiently…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ShuttsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.California Supreme Court · 2003
- Allstate Insurance v. HagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Salveson v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2016
- In re Yahoo Mail LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2015
- In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig.District Court, S.D. California · 2018
- Karen Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.