Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “HOWARD v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.”
539 F.3d 1039 (2008) KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS, N.V., a Netherlands corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KXD TECHNOLOGY, INC.; Astar Electronics, Inc.; Shenzhen KXD Multimedia Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Kaixinda Electronics Co. Ltd.; KXD Digital Entertainment, Ltd.; and Jingyi Luo, a/k/a James Luo, Defendants-Appellants, and Sungale Group, Inc.; Sungale Electronics (Shenzhen), Ltd.; Amoi Electronics, Inc.; Amoi Electronics Co., Ltd.; Amoi Elect
Koninklijke Pe v. Kxd Technologypublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS, N.V., a Netherlands corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KXD TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ASTAR ELECTRONICS, INC.; SHENZHEN KXD MULTIMEDIA CO., LTD.; SHENZHEN KAIXINDA ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.; KXD DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, LTD.; and JINGYI LUO, a/k/a JAMES No. 07-15310 LUO, Defendants-Appellants, D.C. No.
Schreiber v. PHILIPS DISPLAY COMPONENTS CO.public domain
692 F.Supp.2d 747 (2010) Kenneth C. SCHREIBER, Mary Jane Lambert, and George H. Vantine, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPS DISPLAY COMPONENTS CO., Philips Electronic North America Corp., and PACE, Defendants. Case No. 07-10246. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. March 3, 2010. *750 David W. Zoll, Zoll & Kran
Manti Holdings, LLC v. The Carlyle Group Inc.public domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MANTI HOLDINGS, LLC, MALONE ) MITCHELL, WINN INTERESTS, LTD., ) EQUINOX I. A TX, GREG PIPKIN, ) CRAIG JOHNSTONE, TRI-C ) AUTHENTIX, LTD., DAVID MOXAM, ) JOHN LAL PEARCE, and JIM ) RITTENBURG, ) ) Plaintiffs, )
Perry v. Schwarzeneggerpublic domain
602 F.3d 976 (2010) Kristin M. PERRY; Sandra B. Stier; Paul T. Katami; Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and City and County of San Francisco, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as director of the California Department of Public Health and state reg
OptimisCorp v. William Atkinspublic domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE OPTIMISCORP, a Delaware ) Corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) C.A. No. 2020-0183-MTZ ) WILLIAM ATKINS, GREGORY ) SMITH, and JOHN WAITE, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: Februa
Thomas D. Murray v. Shannon Rolquinpublic domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THOMAS D. MURRAY and TDM ) PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2018-0819-KSJM ) SHANNON ROLQUIN, and COLLEEN ) MCGUIGAN, ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Saris, Chief Judge. INTRODUCTION The defendants, Everlight and Epistar, have asserted the affirmative defense of laches, alleging that they should not be liable for any pre-suit damages because the plaintiff, Trustees of Boston University (BU), unreasonably delayed in filing suit against them, and this delay, caused the defendants material economic prejudice. BU re
Donald Reith v. Warren G. Lichtensteinpublic domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DONALD REITH, individually and on ) behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2018-0277-MTZ ) WARREN G. LICHTENSTEIN, GLEN ) M. KASSAN, WILLIAM T. FEJES, JR., ) JACK L. HOWARD, JEFFREY J. ) FENTON, PHILIP E
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHUMASH CAPITAL ) INVESTMENTS, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N23C-07-209 SKR CCLD ) GRAND MESA PARTNERS, LLC ) f/k/a CAPCO GROWTH ) PARTNERS, LLC, ERIC ) WEISSMANN, CGP HOLDINGS,
Sofregen Medical, Inc. v. Allergan Sales, LLCpublic domain
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SOFREGEN MEDICAL INC., a Delaware ) Corporation; and SOFREGEN MEDICAL ) IRELAND LIMITED, an Irish Private ) Limited Company, ) ) Plaintiffs/Counterclaim- ) Defendants, ) ) v. )
MEMORANDUM ANDREWS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presently before the Court is an appeal by Michael T. Kennedy from a memorandum opinion and final order (Adv. D.I. 121, 122)1 (the “Dismissal Order”)' of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granting with prejudice the motions to dismiss (Adv. D.I. 110,112) filed by the Skadden Defendants2</
Intermec IP Corp. v. TransCore, LPpublic domain
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE INTERMEC IP CORP., and ) INTERMEC TECHNOLOGIES CORP., ) ) Plaintiffs- ) Counterclaim Defendants, ) ) C.A. No. N20C-03-254 v. ) PRW CCLD ) TRANSCORE, LP, and TRANSCORE ) HOLDINGS, INC., )
Hamilton Partners, L.P. v. Englardpublic domain
11 A.3d 1180 (2010) HAMILTON PARTNERS, L.P., a New Jersey limited partnership, Plaintiff, v. Murry ENGLARD, Howard Berg, Yoram Hacohen, and Yitz Grossman, Defendants, and New York Healthcare, Inc. and The Bio Balance Corp., Nominal Defendants. C.A. No. 4476-VCL. Court of Chancery of Delaware. Submitted: September 17, 2010. Decided: December 15, 2010.
Malewicz v. City of Amsterdampublic domain
362 F.Supp.2d 298 (2005) Leonard MALEWICZ, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF AMSTERDAM Defendant. No. CIV.A. 04-0024(RMC). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 30, 2005. *299 *300 Harvey Joseph Volzer, Shaughnessy, Volzer & Gagner, PC, Jennifer L. Spina, L. Eden Burgess, T
In re W.J. Bradley Mortgage Capital, LLCpublic domain
3. Coupon Payments to Springfield and Picknelly During the two years prior to the Petition Date, Springfield received monthly cash dividends of $ 71,875 from WJB Mortgage Capital and WJB SEED (the "Springfield Coupon Payments").3 Compl. ¶ 90. The monthly dividend payments started in May 2014 and ended in February 2016.4 Compl. §§ 90, 91, Ex. D. The Springfield Coupon
DiRienzo v. Philip Services Corp.public domain
JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion reversing the decision of the District Court to dismiss these suits on the ground of forum non conveniens. The majority opinion places unnecessary and novel restrictions on what until now has been a district court’s broad discretion to grant forum non conveniens dismissal in any action in which some o
Official Comm. Unsecured Creditors of HH Liquidation, LLC v. Comvest Grp. Holdings, LLC (In re HH Liquidation, LLC)public domain
II. The Parties A. The Debtors 3. Holdings, one of the Debtors on whose behalf the Committee brings this proceeding, is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware. Prior to the Petition Date, certain Comvest entities owned an interest in Holdings. Holdings directly or indirectly owned and operated approximately 18 supermarkets and one pharmacy in Oregon and Washington before contracting
Beatie and Osborn LLP v. Patriot Scientific Corp.public domain
431 F.Supp.2d 367 (2006) BEATIE AND OSBORN LLP, Plaintiff, v. PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Jeffrey Wallin and Lowell Giffhorn, Defendants. No. 05 Civ. 6425(PKL). United States District Court, S.D. New York. May 9, 2006. *368 *369 *370
In Re Hansen Natural Corp. Securities Litigationpublic domain
527 F.Supp.2d 1142 (2007) In re HANSEN NATURAL CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. No. CV 06-7599-JFW (PLAx). United States District Court, C.D. California. October 16, 2007. *1143 *1144 *1145 Aaron L. Brody, Jules Brody, Stull Stull & Brody, New York, NY, Betsy