U.S. v. HUI HSIUNG

Nos. 12-10492, 12-10493, 12-10500, 12-10514.

778 F.3d 738 (2014)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HUI HSIUNG, aka Kuma, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hsuan Bin Chen, aka H.B. Chen, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AU Optronics Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed July 10, 2014.

Amended January 30, 2015.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kristen C. Limarzi (argued), Peter K. Huston , Heather S. Tewksbury , E. Kate Patchen , Jon B. Jacobs , John J. Powers III , James J. Fredericks , and Adam D. Chandler , Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Appellee United States of America.

Neal Kumar Katyal (argued), Christopher T. Handman , and Elizabeth Barchas Prelogar , Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellant Hui Hsiung; Michael A. Attanasio (argued) and Jon F. Cieslak , Cooley LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant, Hsuan Bin Chen; Dennis P. Riordan (argued) and Donald M. Horgan , Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, CA, and Ted Sampsell-Jones , William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, MN, for Defendants-Appellants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America; and John D. Cline , Law Office of John D. Cline, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant AU Optronics Corporation America.

Dr. Chang C. Chen , Law Offices of Chang C. Chen, San Francisco, CA; John Shaeffer and Carole E. Handler , Lathrop & Gage LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Sang N. Dang and Andrew B. Chen , Blue Capital Law Firm, PC, Costa Mesa, CA, for Amicus Curiae Professor Andrew Guzman.

Before: SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Chief Judge, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, Circuit Judge, and VIRGINIA M. KENDALL, District Judge.


ORDER

The opinion filed on July 10, 2014, is amended. The amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for panel rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained.

...

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