Tag: China

  • Case of the Day: Rice v. Electrolux

    The case of the day is Rice v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (M.D. Pa. 2018). The case is a putative class action alleging product defects in a microwave oven. The opinion is, I’m sorry to say, a real stinker. The plaintiffs had to serve process on Microwave And Electrical Appliances Manufacturing Company, Ltd., a Chinese……

  • Case of the Day: Advanced Access v. Shen

    Case of the Day: Advanced Access v. Shen

    The case of the day is Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator, LLC v. Shen (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Advanced Access sued Feng Tao for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act “in connection with Defendants’ trafficking of products designed to circumvent Plaintiff’s encryption technology.” It sought and received leave to serve Feng Tao, a resident of……

  • Legal Mazes in the US/China IP Dispute

    China claims to be strengthening its domestic intellectual property (IP) framework. It has even invited Western companies to sue if they believe IP breaches have occurred within China. But these claims are not a substantial rebuttal to US criticisms of online IP infringement. There remain factors that discourage IP rights holders from bringing cases against……

  • Case of the Day: Rockefeller Technology Investments v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co.

    The case of the day is Rockefeller Technology Investments (Aisa) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). After a dispute between the parties arose, Rockefeller demanded arbitration. SinoType didn’t participate in the proceedings, and the tribunal issued an award for $414 million in Rockefeller’s favor. The agreement to arbitrate included the parties’……

  • Case of the Day: Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome

    The case of the day is Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. (S. Ct. 2018). I noted the case back in January. The case was a class action brought by purchasers of vitamin C against four Chinese manufacturers of the product, claiming they had agreed to fix the price of the product……