Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1696 MATTHEW J. WHITE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee, and HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; HP INC., Defendants. APPEAL FROM THE

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware No. 19-15506 Corporation; ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a D.C. No. California Corporation, 4:16-cv-01393- Plaintiffs-Appellants, JST v. OPINION HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, a Delawa

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS WILLIAM B. SHUBB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Betty Ravel filed this action against defendant Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, alleging that defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her disability in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (Notice of Removal Ex. A, First Am

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0264p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ ROBERT SLOAT, │ Plaintiff-Appellant,

Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge Now before the Court is petitioner's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and respondent's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and in Opposition to Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award. Upon consideration of petitioner's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award [ECF No. 1], respondent's *209Motion to Confir

*461ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS [Re: ECF 306] BETH LABSON FREEMAN, United States District Judge Plaintiffs, former Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) employees, seek certification of three classes pursuant to Rule 23: Technical Solutions Consultants (“TSCs”) I — III at HP who provided technical support for various arms of

Opinion RUSHING, P. J. Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) brought this action against Oracle Corporation (Oracle) alleging that Oracle breached contractual and other duties by announcing that it would no longer make its software products compatible with certain HP hardware products. After the trial court found in a bifurcated trial that Oracle was indeed o

Filed 6/14/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, H044371 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 2011-1-CV-203163) v. ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. Hewlett-Pack

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS ANDREW J. GUILFORD, District Judge. Lead Plaintiffs Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Union Asset Management Holding AG, Labourers’ Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada, and the LIUNA National Pension Fund and LIUNA Staff & Affiliates Pension Fund (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in this securities fraud class action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT FOR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA APR 05 2018 Clerk, U.S. District and ) Bankruptcy Courts JOSEPH COYNE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, ) Civil Case No. l:l6-cv-01694(RCL) ) Respondent. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Now before the Court is petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and respondent’s Motion to Confirrn Arbitration Award and in Opposition to Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award. Upon consideration of petitioner’s Motion to Vacate

MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge. Plaintiff-relator Brady Folliard (“relator” or “Folliard”) brings this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., on behalf of the United States, against Hewlett-Packard Company (“defendant” or “HP”). Now before the Co

Case: 18-2338 Document: 73 Page: 1 Filed: 09/24/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, Defendants-Cross-Appellants ______________________ 2018-2338, 2018-2339, 2018-2395, 2018-2396 ______

Case: 18-2338 Document: 81 Page: 1 Filed: 11/20/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, Defendants-Cross-Appellants ______________________ 2018-2338, 2018-2339, 2018-2395, 2018-2396 ____

587 F.3d 1358 (2009) HEWLETT-PACKARD Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACCELERON LLC, Defendant-Appellee. No. 2009-1283. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. December 4, 2009. *1360 Charlene M. Morrow, Fenwick & West LLP, of Mountain View, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With her on the brief were Erin C. Jones

601 F.Supp.2d 581 (2009) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ACCELERON, LLC, Defendant. Civ. No. 07-650-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. March 10, 2009. *582 William J. Wade, Esquire and Anne Shea Gaza, Esquire of Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff. Of Counsel: Darryl M. Woo, Esquir

373 F.Supp.2d 1349 (2005) HEWLETT-PACKARD CO., as successor-in-interest of Compaq Computer, ACE Insurance S.A., as subrogee of Hewlett Packard Co., and as assignee of Air Express International USA, Inc. f/k/a Danzas AEI Intercontinental, Plaintiffs, v. BROTHER'S TRUCKING ENTERPRISES, INC., and Salem Logistics, Inc., Defendants. No. 04-CIV-21798. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Divisio

59 F.Supp.2d 147 (1999) EMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant. No. 99-11123-JLT. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 8, 1999. Mark P. Szpak, Ropes & Gray, Boston, MA, Chris R. Ottenweller, Terrence P. McMahon, Melissa A. Finocchio, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for EMC Corporation, plaintiff

*57 DECISION AND ORDER PEEBLES, United States Magistrate Judge. This is a patent infringement suit brought by plaintiffs Cornell University and its technology arm, the Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. (collectively “CRF”), against the Hewlet1>-Packard Company (“HP”), a preeminent manufacturer of electronic equipment and apparatus, includ

970 F.Supp. 212 (1997) GALA ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, Counterclaim-Plaintiff, v. GALA ENTERPRISES, INC. and Al Mascolo, Counterclaim-Defendants. No. 96 Civ. 4864 (DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. May 28, 1997. *213 Fischbein, Badillo,

989 F.Supp. 525 (1998) GALA ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, Counterclaim-Plaintiff, v. GALA ENTERPRISES, INC. and Al Mascolo, Counterclaim-Defendants. No. 96 Civ. 4864(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 9, 1998. Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner, Harding by Harold J. Ruvoldt, J