The case of the day is Folex Golf Industries, Inc. v. O-TA Precision Industries Co. (9th Cir. 2015). Folex broght an action against O-TA in the Cenral District of California. O-TA argued that a Chinese default judgment against Folex, in an action against Folex brought by the Luoyang Ship Material Research Institute, would have collateral estoppel effect in California and would bar Folex’s California action. The district court agreed, recognized the Chinese judgment, and granted O-TA summary judgment. Folex appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Folex Golf v. O-TA Precision Industries
The case of the day is Power Electric Distribution, Inc. v. Hengdian Group Linix Motor Co. (D. Minn. 2015). Power Electric purchased custom-made motors from Linix, a Chinese company, for resale to manufacturers in the United States. Their agreement required disputes to be resolved through arbitration in Minneapolis administered by the AAA, and both parties consented to the jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in Minnesota for entry of judgment on an arbitral award. When a dispute arose, Power Electric began an arbitration. Linix participated in the arbitration, which ended in an award for more than $1.5 million for Power Electric, plus a return of tooling, an accounting of all motors Linix sold to FBD (one of Power Electric’s customers), and a royalty on those sales. Power Electric moved to confirm the award. It served the summons on Linix by personal service in China. It was evident that Linix was aware of the proceedings, but Linix took no action except to send a letter asking Power Electric to “Please proceed according to the Hague Convention.” The court entered a judgment confirming the award. Prior to entry of the judgment, Linix had satisfied the $1.5 million damages award, but there was a dispute about the accounting and payment of royalties.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Power Electric Distribution v. Hengdian Group Linix Motor
The case of the day is d.light design, Inc. v. Boxin Solar Co. (N.D. Cal. 2015). The plaintiffs, d.light, Inc. and d.light Design, Inc., sued nine Chinese companies for patent infringement, trade dress infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition. The address of two of the defendants, Skone Lighting Co., Ltd. and Sailing Motor Co., Ltd., were unknown to d.light. So d.light served process on them via email and moved for an order deeming service effectuated.
Continue reading Case of the Day: d.light design, Inc. v. Boxin Solar Co.