Case of the Day: Noco Co. v. Shenzen Dika Na’Er E-Commerce Co.

The case of the day is Noco Co. v. Shenzen Dika Na’Er E-Commerce Co. (N.D. Ohio 2017). Noco sued Shenzen Dika, a Chinese company, for patent infringement. The claim was that the defendant was selling infirnging products on Amazon. Noco “attempted to ascertain a physical address, email address or other contact information by searching Defendants website, Amazon, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ICANN, Google and other social media platforms, including Facebook, all to no avail.”
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Noco Co. v. Shenzen Dika Na’Er E-Commerce Co.

Case of the Day: Moore v. Toyota

The case of the day is Moore v. Toyota Motor Corp. (E.D. La. 2017). It’s a simple case, but judge Sarah Vance gets everything right. The plaintiff, Robert Moore, alleged that his Toyota Corolla had a defective airbag, and that he was injured by the airbag when he was involved in an accident in 2016. He first sued in the Louisiana state court, naming several defendants. The defendants who had been served with process removed the case to the District Court. At that time, Toyota Motor Corp. had not yet been served. After the removal, Moore’s counsel sought to serve process on Toyota in Japan by mail. Toyota moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Moore v. Toyota

Case of the Day: Vuillermin v. Mitsubishi

The case of the day is Vuillermin v. Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017). Christophe Vuillermin, a Frenchman, was convicted of fraud in France. After he completed his prison term, Vuillermin “absconded,” ending up in Miami. The victim of the fraud, Mitsubishi, brought a civil claim in connection with the criminal case (in the civil law, a civil claim can “piggyback” on a criminal claim in a way that doesn’t happen in common law jurisdictions), and in 2006 the French court entered a civil default judgment for € 237,438.11. Mitsubishi began garnishment proceedings in France. Vuillermin objected “solely on the grounds that he was not given notice of the rendition of the 2006 judgment,” but he did not claim a defect in service of the original process (apparently he could not make that argument under French law, because “he had fled the jurisdiction”). The French courts upheld the original judgment and the garnishment, “finding that Vuillermin had fled the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution and had not provided a current, valid address for notice.” Mitsubishi then sought and received recognition of the French judgment in Florida. Vuillermin appealed.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Vuillermin v. Mitsubishi

Case of the Day: EFF v. Global Equity Management

The case of the day is EFF v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty Ltd., (N.D. Cal. 2017). No, you are not experiencing déjà vu— this is the same case we saw on Wednesday. As you will recall, Global Equity had gotten an injunction against the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a South Australian court requiring EFF to remove a supposedly defamatory post from EFF’s “Stupid Patent of the Month” section on its website. EFF had defaulted in the Australian case, and it then brought an action in San Francisco seeking a declaration that the injunction would be unenforceable in the United States in light of the SPEECH Act. In the decision I covered on Wednesday, a magistrate judge held that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Global Equity despite the fact that Global Equity had sent demand letters to EFF in California and had obtained an injunction whose effects were felt primarily in California, where EFF did business. I suggested in the prior post that the judge’s finding was puzzling. EFF sought a de novo review by the district judge.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: EFF v. Global Equity Management

Kuwait Airways Case: German Court Allows Airline To Refuse To Sell Ticket To Israeli

You may recall the Kuwait Airways case, which I’ve written about several times: the airline refused to sell a ticket to an Israeli traveler flying from New York to London on the grounds that Kuwaiti law prohibited the carrier from doing business with Israelis. After some hemming and hawing, the Department of Transportation finally took the view that this was unreasonable discrimination, and thus forbidden by 49 U.S.C. § 41310(a), even though the DOT, curiously, did not assert a violation of 49 U.S.C. § 40127(a), which bars discrimination on the basis of “race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or ancestry.” The airline sought review, but the case was rendered moot when the airline shamefully decided to drop service between New York and London rather than face having to do business with Israeli travelers.

(more…)

Continue ReadingKuwait Airways Case: German Court Allows Airline To Refuse To Sell Ticket To Israeli
Read more about the article Elephant Habeas Case: Steven Wise is a Well-Intentioned Menace
Credit: Casey Allen (CC0)

Elephant Habeas Case: Steven Wise is a Well-Intentioned Menace

At the bitter end of the Monkey Selfie case, I pointed out that the “animals are people” genre of animal rights litigation isn’t just a feel-good resume builder for bright 2Ls in the animal rights clinic. It has real victims. In the Monkey Selfie case, the victim was David Slater, the photographer, who went broke defending the case. I’ve also written about a chimpanzee habeas corpus case (unsuccessful, of course) brought by the Nonhuman Rights Project and its leader, Steven Wise.
(more…)

Continue ReadingElephant Habeas Case: Steven Wise is a Well-Intentioned Menace

Case of the Day: Sharp v. Hisense USA

The case of the day is Sharp Corp. v. Hisense USA Corp. (D.D.C. 2017). Sharp, a Japanese electronics company, entered into a trademark license agreement with Hisense, a Chinese manufacturer. The agreement had an agreement to arbitrate disputes in Singapore under the SIAC rules. Sharp terminated the agreement, arguing that Hisense had failed to perform. Hisense demanded arbitration, and it sought emergency relief. The tribunal entered an interim award enjoining Sharp from terminating the agreement and requiring it to continue to perform pending the outcome of the arbitration. The interim award also enjoined Sharp to:

refrain from, directly or indirectly through its affiliates, disparaging [Hisense] and/or disrupting its business, including by making public statements or press releases about this arbitration and/or the dispute between [Hisense] and [Sharp], or approaching [Hisense’s] business associates and/or other third parties (including, but not limited to, [Hisense’s] customers, suppliers, content and service providers, and/or regulatory authorities, except as required by law), in respect of any matters that are to be addressed in arbitration under the [License Agreement].

Yikes! Sharp brought an action in Washington, seeking a declaration that the interim award is unenforceable in the United States because it is contrary to public policy, namely the policies embodied in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Sharp also sought a preliminary injunction. Hisense moved to dismiss for want of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Sharp v. Hisense USA