Archives

Case of the Day: Princeton Digital Image v. Konami Digital Entertainment

Dance Dance Revolution logo

The case of the day is Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Konami Digital Entertainment Inc. (D. Del. 2016). The case was a patent infringement action against Konami, the developer of the Dance Dance Revolution video game . Princeton sought an order requiring Konami, the US subsidiary of Konami Holdings Corp., to produce documents in the possession of its sister subsidiary, Konami Japan, on the theory that the documents were within the US subsidiary’s control. (The ordinary test for what is discoverable, under FRCP 34, is that the documents must be in the responding party’s “possession, custody, or control”).
Continue reading Case of the Day: Princeton Digital Image v. Konami Digital Entertainment

Case of the Day: PATS Aircraft,v. Vedder Munich

Boeing 737

The case of the day is PATS Aircraft, LLC v. Vedder Munich GmbH (D. Del. 2016). PATS had a contract with a customer for modification of a Boeing 737 jet. PATS subcontracted the interior work to Vedder’s predecessor in interest, Loher Raumexklusiv GmbH. The parties ended up in a contract dispute. Vedder brought a declaratory judgment action in Germany, while PATS brought an action for breach of contract and breach of warranty in Delaware. Vedder moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
Continue reading Case of the Day: PATS Aircraft,v. Vedder Munich

Case of the Day: Capital Investments Group v. Korban

The case of the day is Capital Investments Group v. Korban (D. Del. 2014). Capital Investments, a Wyoming corporation, owned real property in Ukraine. It alleged that Gennady Korban and his sister, Victoria Korban, were part of a conspiracy that aimed to deprive Capital Investments of its property. According to Capital Investments, the linchpin of the alleged conspiracy was a forged power of attorney from CIG to Oleg Vitaliyovich Eryomenko, accompanied by a forged notarial acknowledgment and a forged apostille purporting to have been issued by the Delaware Secretary of State (in the United States, an appropriate official in each of the states is designated as a competent authority for purposes of the Apostille Convention).
Continue reading Case of the Day: Capital Investments Group v. Korban