Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

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 The Seventh Circuit rescinded the order with respect to the depositions but otherwise denied mandamus.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

Plaintiff sued defendant and the Church in Japan, alleging that they had tortiously induced her to transfer nearly all of her assets to the Church. After the Japanese courts awarded plaintiff a tort judgment, the Church contended that the judgment imposed liability for its religious teachings in violation of its constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff, holding that the district court's recognition and enforcement of the judgment did not constitute "state action" triggering direct constitutional scrutiny. The court also held that neither the Japanese judgment nor the cause of action on which it was based rose to the level of repugnance to the public policy of California or of the United States that would justify a refusal to enforce the judgment under California's Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 1713-1724. View "Ohno v. Yasuma" on Justia Law

Triple A, a Michigan corporation, has offices in Dearborn, Michigan, the Congo (previously known as Zaire), and Sierra Leone. In 1993, Zaire ordered military equipment worth $14,070,000 from Triple A. A South Korean manufacturer shipped the equipment to Zaire at Triple A’s request. For 17 years, Triple A sought payment from Zaire and then the Congo without success. In 2010, Triple A sued the Congo for breach of contract. The district court dismissed the case, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1602. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, citing the language of the Act, under which federal courts have jurisdiction “in any case in which the action is based upon” the following: [1] a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or [2] upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or [3] upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States.View "Triple A Int'l, Inc. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo" on Justia Law

Appellees, the Rubins, requested that the district court issue a Writ of Garnishment against the assets of Hamas and HLF after obtaining a judgment against Hamas for damages resulting from a terrorist attack in an outdoor pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. The district court executed the writ but the Rubins could not execute against HLF's assets because those assets had been restrained under 21 U.S.C. 853 to preserve their availability for criminal forfeiture proceedings. The district court subsequently denied the government's motion to dismiss the Rubins' third-party petition under section 853(n) to assert their interests in the restrained assets and vacated the preliminary order of forfeiture. The district court held that the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), Pub. L. No. 107-297, title II, 201, 116 Stat. 2337, allowed the Rubins to execute against HLF's assets not withstanding the government's forfeiture proceedings. The court reversed, holding that section 853(n) did not provide the Rubins with a basis to prevail in the ancillary proceeding; TRIA did not provide the Rubins a basis to assert their interest in the forfeited property; TRIA did not trump the criminal forfeiture statute; and the in custodia legis doctrine did not preclude the district court's in personam jurisdiction over HLF.View "United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief, et al." 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

Plaintiffs filed suit against Sudan after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and the district court found Sudan liable under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), 46 U.S.C. 30301 et seq. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's conclusion that the DOHSA action precluded their subsequent federal cause of action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1605. The court concluded that the various provisions of section 1083 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA), Pub. L. No. 110-181, 122 Stat. 3, were inapplicable here and, therefore, the court declined to consider the constitutionality of NDAA section 1083; the district court did not abuse its discretion when, as part of a close look, considered sua sponte whether res judicata barred plaintiffs' claims; but the court concluded, however, that res judicata should not apply here. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.View "Clodfelter v. Republic of Sudan" 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