Tag Archives: Agent for service

Case of the Day: Sobek Therapeutics v. SVADS Holdings

The case of the day is Sobek Therapeutics, LLC v. SVADS Holdings SA (M.D. Fla. 2014). The dispute revolved around rights to the NUPRIN mark. NUPRIN had previously been a brand name for ibuprofin, an over-the-counter pain medicine. Sobek sued SVADS seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the mark. SVADS, a Swiss firm, moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Sobek Therapeutics v. SVADS Holdings

Case of the Day: Carney v. Beracha

The case of the day is Carney v. Beracha (D. Conn. 2014). Carney was the court-appointed receiver for Highview Point Partners, LLC. The court had appointed him as receiver in connection with an enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Francisco Illarramendi for alleged violation of the federal securities laws. Carney, once appointed, filed actions against Moris Beracha and Bradleyville, Ltd., among others, to recover property for the purpose of distributing it to the victims of the fraud Illarramendi is alleged to have committed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Carney v. Beracha

Case of the Day: Surefire LLC v. Casual Home Worldwide, Inc.

The case of the day is Surefire, LLC v. Casual Home Worldwide, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2012). Surefire sued Fenixlight Ltd., a Chinese company, for patent infringement. It served the summons and complaint on Ming Chiang in Nevada and asserted that he was an agent authorized to accept service on behalf of Fenixlight. Although Surefire argued that Chiang had told the process server that he was authorized to accept service, Surefire offered no testimony to that effect, while Fenixlight offered affidavits to prove that Chiang was not authorized; in any case, a supposed agent’s statement that he has authority to accept service on behalf of a corporation is not dispositive under ordinary principles of agency law, which require a manifestation of authority from the principal, not the agent. The judge correctly quashed the service of process.