Legal Opinion
Compaq Computer Corp. v. Packard Bell Electronics, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 24, 1995No. C 95-7005 Misc JWPublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*333MEMORANDUM & ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART NON-PARTY ACER’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND/OR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
INFANTE, United States Magistrate Judge *.
I. Introduction and Background
This is a miscellaneous discovery proceeding. In the underlying action venued in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 95-222, plaintiff Compaq Computer Corp. (“Compaq”) alleges that defendant Packard Bell Electronics, Inc. (“Packard Bell”) has engaged in false advertising in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), unfair and deceptive trade…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Company and Pennzoil Products CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Richardson-Vicks, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Truswal Systems Corp. v. Hydro-Air Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Miller v. PancucciDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1992
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- DIRECTV, Inc. v. TroneDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2002
- Gonzales v. Google, Inc.District Court, D. North Carolina · 2006
- Pacamor Bearings, Inc. v. Minebea Co., Ltd.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1996
- American Electric Power Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1999
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Kirk's Tire & Auto Servicenter of Haverstraw, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2003
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.