Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16506, No. 246 (9th Cir. Jun. 30, 2023)
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Northern District of California, Oakland
Judge M. Smith has voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc, and Judges
* The Honorable Michael J. McShane, United States District Judge for
the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
The full court has been advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote.
Cite Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16506, No. 246 (9th Cir. Jun. 30, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Docket
4:19-cv-00717,
California Northern District Court
(Feb. 8, 2019)
Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu, presiding, Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu
Statutory Actions - Other
02/13/2025 | ... as well as non-participating counsel in attendance were invited to raise an objection or request a continuance of the hearing. None did so, and all participating counsel specifically asked that the... |
Cite Docket
In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, 4:19-cv-00717 (N.D.Cal.)
+ More Snippets
Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16506, No. 222 (9th Cir. May. 3, 2023)
None of the authorities Apple cites comes anywhere close to supporting its radical argument that, where parties offer dueling market definitions, the case immediately ends if the district court finds the record supports the defendant’s ...
Nonetheless, we are bound by County of Tuolumne and mindful of Alston’s warning that the first three steps of the Rule of Reason are not a “rote checklist.” Therefore, where a plaintiff’s case comes up short at step three, the district court ...
Nonetheless, we join the D.C. Circuit in holding that per se condemnation is inappropriate for ties “involv[ing] software that serves as a platform for third-party applications.” Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 89.
Particularly, “[i]n none of these cases was the tied good . . . technologically integrated with the tying good.” Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 90. Moreover, none of the ties presented any purported procompetitive benefits that could not be achieved ...
Cite Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16506, No. 222 (9th Cir. May. 3, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16506, No. 219 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2023)
None of the authorities Apple cites comes anywhere close to supporting its radical argument that, where parties offer dueling market definitions, the case immediately ends if the district court finds the record supports the defendant’s ...
Nonetheless, we are bound by County of Tuolumne and mindful of Alston’s warning that the first three steps of the Rule of Reason are not a “rote checklist.” Therefore, where a plaintiff’s case comes up short at step three, the district court ...
Nonetheless, we join the D.C. Circuit in holding that per se condemnation is inappropriate for ties “involv[ing] software that serves as a platform for third-party applications.” Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 89.
Particularly, “[i]n none of these cases was the tied good . . . technologically integrated with the tying good.” Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 90. Moreover, none of the ties presented any purported procompetitive benefits that could not be achieved ...
Cite Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16506, No. 219 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16506, No. 218 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023)
Cite Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16506, No. 218 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16695, No. 203 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023)
Cite Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16695, No. 203 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16506, No. 215 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2023)
Cite Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16506, No. 215 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16695, No. 200 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2023)
Cite Document
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 21-16695, No. 200 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Docket
4:18-cv-07292,
California Northern District Court
(Nov. 30, 2018)
Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr,
presiding.
Fraud
Cite Docket
In re Nissan North America, Inc. Litigation, 4:18-cv-07292 (N.D.Cal.)
+ More Snippets
Docket
18-CIV-03072,
California State, San Mateo County, Superior Court
(June 18, 2018)
John L. Grandsaert,
presiding.
Cite Docket
JENNIFER MASIELLO vs. NUTRIBULLET, LLC, et al, 18-CIV-03072 (California State, San Mateo County, Superior Court)
+ More Snippets
Docket
18CV326657,
California State, Santa Clara County, Superior Court
(April 17, 2018)
Cite Docket
FREEDOM EQUITY GROUP, LLC vs Kenneth Sisco, 18CV326657 (California State, Santa Clara County, Superior Court)
+ More Snippets
Document
In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 3:21-md-02981, No. 1075 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 28, 2025)
Cite Document
In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 3:21-md-02981, No. 1075 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 28, 2025)
+ More Snippets
Document
In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, 4:19-cv-00717, No. 534 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 13, 2025)
Cite Document
In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, 4:19-cv-00717, No. 534 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 13, 2025)
+ More Snippets
Document
In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, 4:19-cv-00717, No. 533 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 11, 2025)
Cite Document
In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, 4:19-cv-00717, No. 533 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 11, 2025)
+ More Snippets
Document
In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 3:21-md-02981, No. 1065 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 23, 2025)
Cite Document
In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 3:21-md-02981, No. 1065 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 23, 2025)
+ More Snippets