Apeldyn Corporation v. Au Optronics Corporation and Au Optronics Corporation America

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
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.
______________________
2012-1172, -1173
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 08-CV-0568, Judge Sue L.
Robinson.
______________________
JUDGMENT

-- 1 of 2 --

______________________
SCOTT G. SEIDMAN, Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke
& Booth, of Portland, Oregon argued for plaintiff-
appellant. With him on the brief were J ON P. STRIDE and
D ON H. M ARMADUKE .
L AWRENCE J. G OTTS , 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
T ERRY D. G ARNETT , VINCENT K. YIP , P ETER J. WIED and
J AY C. CHIU, Goodwin Procter LLP, of Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia.
D ONALD R. MCP HAIL , Cozen O’Connor, of Washington,
DC, argued for defendants-appellees Chi Mei Optoelec-
tronics Corporation, et al. With him on the brief was
BARRY G OLOB. Of counsel was K RISTINA C AGGIANO,
Duane Morris, LLP, of Washington, DC.
______________________
T HIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
O RDERED and A DJUDGED:
P ER CURIAM (L OURIE, SCHALL , and REYNA, Circuit
Judges).
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
ENTERED BY O RDER OF THE COURT
July 17, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Date Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk

-- 2 of 2 --