1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 85 F.3d
  5. 85 F.3d 1561 (1996)
 

HOSIDEN CORP. v. ADVANCED DISPLAY MFRS. OF AMERICA

No. 94-1380.

85 F.3d 1561 (1996)

HOSIDEN CORPORATION, Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Corporation, Apple Computer, Inc., International Business Machines Corporation, COMPAQ Computer Corporation, Tandy Corporation, Plaintiffs, and Sharp Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADVANCED DISPLAY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant, and Planar Systems, Inc., Plasmaco, Inc., OIS Optical Imaging Systems, Inc., Cherry Display Products Corporation, Electro-Plasma Inc., Photonics Technology, Inc., and Magnascreen Corporation, Defendants, and Texas Instruments, Incorporated, Defendant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. ADVANCED DISPLAY MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Planar Systems, Inc., Plasmaco, Inc., OIS Optical Imaging Systems, Inc., Cherry Display Products Corporation, Electro-Plasma Inc., Photonics Technology, Inc., and Magnascreen Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 31, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Paul C. Rosenthal, Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, Washington, DC, argued for the plaintiff-appellant.

Paul R. Bardos, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, argued for the United States, defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Lyn M. Schlitt, General Counsel, and James A. Toupin, Deputy General Counsel.

Christopher P. Johnson, Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, argued for Sharp Corporation, plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Peter J. Gartland, David S. Versfelt, and Fusae Nara. Of counsel was Christopher K. Tahbaz.

Before RICH, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

In this antidumping duty case, the Advanced Display Manufacturers of America (ADMA) appeals the final decision of the United States Court of International Trade1 relating to imports of high-information content flat panel displays (HIC FPDs). The International Trade Commission (ITC or Commission) had determined that the appropriate procedure for analyzing the injury to the domestic industry was to cumulate...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases