From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jul 17, 2013
522 F. App'x 912 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Opinion

2012-1172 2012-1173

07-17-2013

APELDYN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AND AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees, AND CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION AND CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendants.

SCOTT G. SEIDMAN, Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth, of Portland, Oregon argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were JON P. STRIDE LAWRENCE J. GOTTS, Latham & Watkins LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees AU Optronics Corporation, et al. With him on the brief was ELIZABETH M. ROESEL. Of counsel on the brief were TERRY D. GARNETT, VINCENT K. YIP, PETER J. WIED DONALD R. MCPHAIL, Cozen O'Connor, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, et al. With him on the brief was BARRY GOLOB. Of counsel was KRISTINA CAGGIANO, Duane Morris, LLP, of Washington, DC.


NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 08-CV-0568, Judge Sue L. Robinson.

JUDGMENT

SCOTT G. SEIDMAN, Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth, of Portland, Oregon argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were JON P. STRIDE and DON H. MARMADUKE.

LAWRENCE J. GOTTS, Latham & Watkins LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees AU Optronics Corporation, et al. With him on the brief was ELIZABETH M. ROESEL. Of counsel on the brief were TERRY D. GARNETT, VINCENT K. YIP, PETER J. WIED and JAY C. CHIU, Goodwin Procter LLP, of Los Angeles, California.

DONALD R. MCPHAIL, Cozen O'Connor, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, et al. With him on the brief was BARRY GOLOB. Of counsel was KRISTINA CAGGIANO, Duane Morris, LLP, of Washington, DC.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

_____________

Daniel E. O'Toole

Clerk


Summaries of

Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jul 17, 2013
522 F. App'x 912 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp.

Case Details

Full title:APELDYN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AND…

Court:United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date published: Jul 17, 2013

Citations

522 F. App'x 912 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Apeldyn Corp. v. Sony Corp.

Moreover, on appeal to the Federal Circuit, plaintiff raised precisely this issue, arguing that “the district…