https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/01/case-of-the-day-rockefeller-technology-investments-v-changzhou-sinotype-technology-co/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Thu, 14 Nov 2024 03:12:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/01/case-of-the-day-rockefeller-technology-investments-v-changzhou-sinotype-technology-co/#comment-22276 Thu, 14 Nov 2024 03:08:06 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27446#comment-22276 […] Convention is exclusive (or as the Supreme Court has said, “mandatory”—see this recent post for an explanation of the terms “exclusive” and “mandatory” here. This […]

]]> https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/01/case-of-the-day-rockefeller-technology-investments-v-changzhou-sinotype-technology-co/#comment-3169 Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:55:02 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27446#comment-3169 […] Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co. (Cal. 2020). I wrote about the intermediate appellate decision in October 2018, and I briefly noted the new decision last week. Sinotype was a Chinese company. The parties were […]

]]> https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/01/case-of-the-day-rockefeller-technology-investments-v-changzhou-sinotype-technology-co/#comment-3168 Fri, 03 Apr 2020 10:01:05 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27446#comment-3168 […] you have read my prior coverage here or in the ABA Section on International Law’s Year in Review, you won’t be surprised to […]

]]> https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/10/01/case-of-the-day-rockefeller-technology-investments-v-changzhou-sinotype-technology-co/#comment-3167 Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:24:30 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27446#comment-3167 […] Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Company, Ltd., which I wrote about in October 2018. I am always pleased when a law professor’s take on the case is consistent with mine, and […]

]]>