Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Motorola, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
Case Number:
3:09-cv-05840
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Baker McKenzie
- Bingham McCutchen
- Boersch Shapiro
- Cleary Gottlieb
- Covington & Burling
- Crowell & Moring
- Davis Polk
- Farmer Brownstein
- Freitas & Weinberg
- K&L Gates
- Law Office of John D. Cline
- Nossaman LLP
- Paul Weiss
- Sheppard Mullin
- Simpson Thacher
- Sullivan & Cromwell
- White & Case
- WilmerHale
Companies
- AU Optronics Corp.
- Chimei Innolux Corp.
- Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.
- LG Display Co. Ltd.
- Panasonic Corp.
- Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
- Sharp Corp.
- Toshiba Corp.
Sectors & Industries:
-
July 31, 2012
Epson Pays $150M To Settle Motorola LCD Price-Fixing Feud
Seiko Epson Corp. said Tuesday that its subsidiary Epson Imaging Devices Corp. has settled for $150 million antitrust claims brought by Motorola Mobility LLC, ending its involvement in Motorola's multidistrict litigation over alleged price-fixing in the liquid crystal display market.
-
March 29, 2011
Motorola's Price-Fixing Claims Preserved In LCD MDL
A group of liquid crystal display panel makers lost a bid Monday to toss antitrust claims by Motorola Inc. in a multidistrict price-fixing litigation after a California federal judge rejected their argument that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.