§Why CasetextPricing

Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated

RESPONSE in Opposition re Ex Parte MOTION Regarding Authenticity and Foundation Objections

3 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. AT & T Inc.

    310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018)   Cited 8 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Noting how changes in the industry for video content caused a "rush from television ads to digital ones" that favored innovative technology companies over traditional television programmers

  2. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

    Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK 10-22-2013 APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. LUCY H. KOH ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF UPDATED EXPERT REPORTS ON DAMAGES Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications

  3. United States v. Chikata

    427 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1970)   Cited 11 times
    In United States v. Chikata, 427 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1970), the trial court referred to defense counsel's repetitious interrogation as "just ridiculous.