Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

The Bank filed this interpleader action to determine ownership of funds held on deposit in an account in the name of the Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement (FDSP), an entity organized under the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). The account was frozen pursuant to an executive order during the Bosnian War. Yugoimport, a Serbian entity, claimed full ownership of the funds as successor-in-interest to the FDSP. The Republics of Croatia and Slovenia contend that the funds should be divided among the states succeeding the SFRY under a multilateral treaty, the Succession Agreement. The court held that interpretation of the Succession Agreement was governed by the Vienna Convention and that the FSPA was an agency of the SFRY. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Republics. View "Yugoimport v. Republic of Croatia, Republic of Slovenia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former business associates, alleging that they directed a paramilitary unit of the Bangladeshi national police to detain and torture him in order to force him to turn over his ownership interest in a telecommunications company. Defendants were found liable for violations under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 106 Stat. 73, note following 28 U.S.C. 1350. The court held that the conduct giving rise to this action occurred within the territory of another sovereign and, therefore, under Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Co., could not form the basis of an action under the ATS; the general verdict rule did not require that the judgment against defendants be vacated with respect to plaintiff's claim under the TVPA because the jury necessarily found Defendant Khan liable under that statute in returning a general verdict in favor of plaintiff; plaintiff's claim under the TVPA was based on actionable torture, and permissibly predicated on agency theories of liability; and the district court did not err in allowing plaintiff to testify regarding certain statements made to him by foreign police agents, who were agents or coconspirators. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Chowdhury v. Worldtel Bangladesh Holding, Ltd." on Justia Law

EnOcean owns a patent application that claims a self-powered switch, which can be used to turn on and off lights, appliances, and other devices without a battery or connection to an electrical outlet. The named inventors originally filed a patent application disclosing the switch in Germany in 2000; in 2001 they filed a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international application with a similar disclosure. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences declared an interference in 2010 between EnOcean and Face, the real party of interest in a U.S. Patent that also claims a self-powered switch. The Board found the Face claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on prior art. Face did not appeal. The Board then applied a presumption that EnOcean’s claims were unpatentable for the same reasons. EnOcean’s argument for rebutting the presumption required determination that EnOcean’s claims could benefit from the filing dates of its German and PCT applications, eliminating a reference from prior art. The Board accorded no benefit of priority to the claims and found all of EnOcean’s claims unpatentable under section 103. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, finding that the Board erred in treating certain EnOcean claims as means-plus-function claims and in finding that certain EnOcean claim limitations lack support in its priority German and PCT applications.View "EnOcean GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp." on Justia Law

A number of suits have challenged the accuracy of the warning label on Pradaxa, a prescription blood-thinning drug manufactured by Boehringer. The litigation is in the discovery stage. The district judge presiding over the litigation imposed sanctions on Boehringer for discovery abuse. Boehringer sought a writ of mandamus quashing the sanctions, which included fines, totaling almost $1 million and also ordered that plaintiffs’ depositions of 13 Boehringer employees, all of whom work in Germany be conducted at “a place convenient to the [plaintiffs] and [to] the defendants’ [Boehringer’s] United States counsel,” presumably in the United States. The parties had previously agreed to Amsterdam as the location. The Seventh Circuit rescinded the order with respect to the depositions but otherwise denied mandamus. View "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm. v. Herndon" on Justia Law

This derivative suit was brought by the named plaintiff, a stockholder in United Technologies Corporation (UTC), on behalf of UTC. The plaintiff alleged that the UTC board of directors caused UTC to misrepresent violations of export controls by two of its subsidiaries to the federal government. Defendants were the members of the UTC board at the time of the complaint and the former chairman and CEO of UTC. The plaintiffs, however, failed to allege that any of the individuals other than the CEO and the first-named defendant were not independent. The Court of Chancery dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to the named plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff failed to plead facts supporting an inference that a majority of the board faced a substantial likelihood of personal liability.View "Harold Grill 2 IRA v. Chenevert" on Justia Law

After the end of World War II, holders of public and private bonds issued in Germany demanded repayment. Germany had suspended payment on many bonds during the 1930s, but some were not due until the 1950s or 1960s. A Debt Agreement involving 21 creditor nations specified that Germany would pay valid debts outstanding in 1945. Germany enacted a Validation Law requiring holders to submit foreign debt instruments for determination of whether the claims were genuine. In 1953 the U.S. and West Germany agreed by treaty (applicable to Germany as reconstituted in 1990) that the debts would be paid only if found to be legitimate. Holders had five years to submit documents for validation by a New York panel. Later claims went to an Examining Agency in Germany. Decisions were subject to review in Germany. Plaintiffs sued in 2008 under international diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2), to recover on bearer bonds issued or guaranteed by Germany before the war. One holder never submitted to validation. The other submitted bonds to a panel in Germany, which found them ineligible, and did not seek review. The district court dismissed, holding that the Treaty is binding and that the suit was barred by a 10-year (Illinois) statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Treaty amounted to a taking without just compensation. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), authorizes whatever compensation the Constitution requires and the Supreme Court has stated that there is no constitutional obstacle to an international property settlement. The Treaty is not self-executing; the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350, cannot be used to contest the acts of foreign nations within their own borders. How Germany administers the validation process is for German courts to consider. The case was also barred by the limitations period. View "Korber v. Bundesrepublik Deutscheland" on Justia Law

Respondent, the mother, appealed the district court's grant of petitioner's, the father, petition for the return of his daughter from New York to New Zealand under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 90, and its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq. The court held that New Zealand was the daughter's habitual residence immediately prior to her removal to New York; petitioner had some custody rights to the daughter and did not consent to the mother taking her to New York indefinitely; the daughter had not "acclimated" to life in New York such that it was the equivalent of a new habitual residence; and the district court should determine, in the first instance, whether to order respondent to pay petitioner the costs associated with bringing this action in the district court and on appeal. View "Hollis v. O'Driscoll" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a noncitizen "enemy combatant" undergoing proceedings before a military commission at Guatanamo Bay, sought a declaratory judgment that the commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the charges against him because the alleged acts occurred in Yemen, where he argued no war or hostilities existed in 2000 or 2002. The court held, pursuant to Hamad v. Gates, that Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act, 28 U.S.C. 2241(e), deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit. The court rejected plaintiff’s claims challenging the constitutionality of the Act. View "Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's order denying their Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the district court's judgment dismissing sovereign defendants under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1330 1602 et seq. Plaintiffs moved for relief from judgment in order to appeal the district court's alternative ground for finding sovereign immunity - a ground that the court declined to reach in its prior opinion. The district court denied the motion under the impression that the court would be able to consider that unreviewed issue on appeal from the denial. But the court could not. Accordingly, the court concluded that this was an error of law and that "extraordinary circumstances" existed warranting relief under Rule 60(b). The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001" on Justia Law

Mr. Chafin appealed the district court's grant of Ms. Chafin's petition for wrongful removal under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11670. The district court found that the child's country of habitual residence was Scotland and that Mr. Chafin failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that returning the child to Scotland would expose her to grave risk of harm. The court affirmed, concluding that Mr. Chafin had not demonstrated that the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous and that the district court correctly applied the law to the facts. View "Chafin v. Chafin" on Justia Law