Memorex Corp., Etc. v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., Memorex Corp., Etc. v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Memorex Corp., Etc. v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., Memorex Corp., Etc. v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
74 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. v. General Cinema Corp. (azd, 1990-05-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. v. General Cinema Corp.
D. Ariz. · 1990 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM Corp., 458 F.Supp. 423, 436 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff 'd sub nom., Memorex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 972 , 101 S.Ct. 3126 , 69 L.Ed.2d 983 (1981).
discussed Cited "see" Monfort of Colorado, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc.
D. Colo. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Memorex Corp. v. I.B.M., 458 F.Supp. 423, 429 (C.D.Cal.1978), aff' d., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 452 U.S. 972 , 101 S.Ct. 3126 , 69 L.Ed.2d 983 (1981); In re IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litigation, 481 F.Supp. 965, 985 (N.D.Cal.1979), aff'd., 698 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir.1983). *698 In the instant case, the court finds that the existence of nonfed cattle slaughtering plants is not a significant competitive check on fed cattle slaughterers’ pricing activities.
discussed Cited "see" Foremost Pro Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM Corp., 458 F.Supp. 423, 439 (N.D.Cal.1978) (discussing technological innovations by alleged monopolist), aff’d sub nom., Memorex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 972 , 101 S.Ct. 3126 , 69 L.Ed.2d 983 (1981).
discussed Cited "see" Foremost Pro Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM Corp., 458 F.Supp. 423, 439 (N.D.Cal.1978) (discussing technological innovations by alleged monopolist), aff'd sub nom., Memorex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 972 , 101 S.Ct. 3126 , 69 L.Ed.2d 983 (1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McDonald v. Johnson & Johnson
D. Minnesota · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 458 F.Supp. 423, 447-48 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff’d sub notn., Memorex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1980) (directed verdict affirmed; no disposition as to striking plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MEMOREX CORPORATION, Etc., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee; MEMOREX CORPORATION, Etc., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
78-3050, 78-3236.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 5, 1981.
636 F.2d 1188
Ronald S. Beard, Gibson, Dunn & Crutch-er, Los Angeles, Cal., argued for Memorex Corp., ILC Peripherals; Karl A. Limbach, Limbach, Limbach & Sutton, San Francisco, Cal., on brief., Patrick Lynch, O’Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., argued for International Business Machines Corp.; Edward B. Rogin, Orriek, Herrington, Rowley & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., James V. Selna, Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.
Claims, Duniway, Goodwin, Kashiwa, Per Curiam.
Cited by 51 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In this anti-trust case the trial judge, after a full trial lasting 80 days, granted a motion for a directed verdict. ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp., et al. v. International Business Machines Corp., N.D. Cal., 1978, 458 F.Supp. 423. It had previously granted a motion for a directed verdict on one issue. ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., N.D. Cal., 1978, 448 F.Supp. 228. Plaintiffs appeal.

The case is one of several similar cases. One of these is California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., 9 Cir., 1979, 613 F.2d 727. There we affirmed a judgment based upon the granting of a motion for a directed verdict in a case that presented substantially the same issues and much of the same evidence. We are unable to distinguish Memorex’s case from the California Computer Products case, and we conclude that, on the authority of that case the judgment should be affirmed. See also The Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 10 Cir., 1975, 510 F.2d 894, reversing N.D. Okl., 1973, 367 F.Supp. 258; In re IBM EDP Devices Antitrust Litigation, Transamerica Computer Co., Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., N.D. Cal, 1979, 481 F.Supp. 965.

Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to decide whether it was error for the court to enter an order striking plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial in the event of a new trial. See, however, In re Financial Securities Litigation, Fabrikant v. Bache and Co., 9 Cir., 1979, 609 F.2d 411.

Affirmed.