Cases

SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judge, concurring in the order denying rehearing en banc: The original panel majority opinion, see Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 829 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2016), fully explains why quashing the government’s warrant is called for by Supreme Court precedent on extraterritoriality and the text of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. Because t

GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment: I am in general agreement with the Court’s conclusion that, in light of the presumption against extraterritorial application of congressional enactments, the Stored Communications Act (“SCA” or the “Act”) should not, on the record made by the government below, be construed to require Microsoft to turn

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

Case below, 731 F.3d 1064.Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari denied. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Same case below, 580 F.3d 1301.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GREGORY L. TADDONIO, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reinstate Counts Nine and Ten of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Against Beyondsoft Consulting Inc. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7015 and 7016,1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16, and Local Bankruptcy Rules 7016-1 and 7008 (the “Motion”)

Related Dkt. Nos. 259, 262, 268, 276 *112MEMORANDUM OPINION1 GREGORY L. TADDONIO, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Prithvi Catalytic, Inc, (“PCI”)2 was an information technology staffing company that deployed teams of highly skilled em-. ployee “resources” to work on projects at

231 F.Supp.2d 144 (2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. No. CIV.A.98-1232(CKK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 1, 2002. *145 *146 *147 *148 Philip

87 F.Supp.2d 30 (2000) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. State of New York, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Microsoft Corporation, Defendant. Microsoft Corporation, Counterclaim-Plaintiff, Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of the State of New York, in his official capacity, et al., Counterclaim-Defendants. Civil Action Nos. 98-1232 (TPJ), 98-1233 (TPJ).

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM. Table of Contents .44 I. Introduction.47 A. Background.47 B. Overview.48 II. Monopolization.50 A. Monopoly Power.51 1. Market Structure .51 a. Market definition.

84 F.Supp.2d 9 (1999) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. State of New York, ex rel. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer et al., Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants, v. Microsoft Corporation, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff. Nos. CIV. A. 98-1232(TPJ), CIV. A. 98-1233(TPJ). United States District Court, District of Columbia. N

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. The Chief Justice *999took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

97 F.Supp.2d 59 (2000) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. State of New York, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Microsoft Corporation, Defendant. Microsoft Corporation, Counterclaim-Plaintiff, v. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, in his official capacity, et al., Counterclaim-Defendants. Nos. CIV. A. 98-1232(TPJ), CIV. A. 98-1233(TPJ).</

65 F.Supp.2d 1 (1999) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. State of New York, ex rel. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer et al., Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants, v. Microsoft Corporation, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff. Nos. CIV. A. 98-1232(TPJ), CIV. A. 98-1233(TPJ). United States District Court, District of Columbia. N

980 F.Supp. 537 (1997) UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Respondent. No. CIV.A. 94-1564 TPJ. United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 11, 1997. *538 Donald J. Russell, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Anti-Trust Division, Telecomm/Task Force, Washington, DC, Anne K. Bingaman, U.S. Dept. of

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

543 U.S. 821 MULTI-TECH SYSTEMS, INC.v.MICROSOFT CORP. ET AL. No. 03-1719. Supreme Court of United States. October 4, 2004. 1 C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 357 F. 3d 1340.

USCA11 Case: 22-10223 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2023 Page: 1 of 24 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10223 ____________________ TOCMAIL, INC.,

ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S NOTICES OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT; (S) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON DAVID ALAN EZRA, Senior District Judge. Before the Court are three pending motions: a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue to the Weste

14‐2985 Microsoft Corp. v. United States United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in th