Tag Archives: 1782

Case of the Day: Andover Healthcare v. 3M

The case of the day is Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Co. (8th Cir. 2016). Andover and 3M were competitors in the market for latex-free bandages. In 2013, Andover sued 3M for patent infringement in Delaware and in Germany.

Andover’s European patent (EP 1 027 084 B1) claimed “a cohesive product comprising … an inherently crystalline elastomer and at least one tackifying agent in an amount effective to disrupt the crystalline structure of the elastomer and maintain the elastomer in a partial polycrystalline state.” In the German case, 3M’s expert opined that 3M’s elastomers “are not present in a crystalline … state,” and thus that 3Ms products could not infringe the patent. Andover did not believe the expert’s test results could be correct and asked 3M to provide samples of its materials to allow Andover to do its own tests for use in the German case. But 3M refused on the grounds that disclosure would compromise its trade secrets. 3M had previously disclosed the information for use in the Delaware case. But the Delaware court refused to modify the protective order to allow use of the information in the German case, and the German court had not yet ruled on Andover’s request for discovery. So Andover sought the information from 3M for use in Germany by way of § 1782. A magistrate judge denied its application, and the district court affirmed. Andover appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Andover Healthcare v. 3M

Case of the Day: Grupo Mexico v. SAS Asset Recovery

The case of the day is Grupo Mexico SAB de CV v. SAS Asset Recovery, Ltd. (5th Cir. 2016). This was a § 1782 case with an unusual twist. Grupo Mexico was involved in litigation in Mexico and sought discovery from SAS, which had offices in Dallas. After the district court granted the ex parte application (which included, as a necessary finding, that SAS was “found” in the Northern District of Texas), SAS evaded service of process in Dallas, leading Grupo Mexico ultimately to serve the subpoena on its registered agent in the Cayman Islands, via the Hague Service Convention. Grupo Mexico then moved to quash, arguing that the service was improper because it failed to comply with Cayman law, and also that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The judge denied the motion, in part on the grounds that SAS had waived objections to service and the jurisdiction by failing to object timely to the subpoena. SAS appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Grupo Mexico v. SAS Asset Recovery

Case of the Day: In re O’Keeffe

Statue of a Minuteman
Letters Blogatory wishes its readers a Happy Patriots' Day!

The case of the day is In re O’Keeffe (3d Cir. 2016). I’ve written about the case before. Kate O’Keeffe was a reporter with the Wall Street Journal. She wrote an article that described casino magnate Sheldon Adelson as “foul-mouthed.” Adelson sued for defamation in Hong Kong, and O’Keeffe sought issuance of a subpoena to Kirk A. Thorell, who as an auditor who worked on audits for one of Adelson’s companies. Adelson moved to quash the subpoena, but the district court denied the motion, and Adelson appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: In re O’Keeffe