-
Case of the Day: Topstone Communications v. Chenyi Xu
The case of the day is Topstone Communications, Inc. v. Chenyi Xu (S.D. Tex. 2022). I love this case. It shows that the tide is turning. As longtime readers know, ever since Gurung v. Malhotra, courts have approved service by email on defendants in cases within the scope of the HCCH Service Convention, even when……
-
Case of the Day: Sinox Co. v. Yifeng Manufacturing Co.
The case of the day is Sinox Co. v. Yifeng Manufacturing Co. (W.D. Tex. 2022). In light of my recent post on service by electronic means at the Transnational Litigation Blog, which dealt with prospects for addressing the tension between the Service Convention and current practice in the US courts, I thought I would use……
-
Case of the Day: Amazon.com v. Robojap Techs.
The interpretation of Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention continues to be the most vexing international service of process issue facing US courts. Article 10(a) preserves “the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad … [p]rovided the State of destination does not object.” Does this provision allow for service via email,……
-
Case of the Day: WSOU Investments v. TP-Link Technologies
The case of the day is WSOU Investments LLC v. TP-Link Technologies Co. (W.D. Tex. 2021). WSOU sued TP-Link, a Chinese company whose offices are in Shenzhen, for patent infringement. It sought leave under FRCP 4(f)(3) to serve process by email to TP-Link’s former US counsel and by certified mail to TP-Link’s US subsidiary. The……
-
Case of the Day: DRM Contract Administration v. Proton Technologies
The case of the day is DRM Contract Administration Ltd. v. Proton Technologies AG [2021] IEHC 554. DRM sued Proton Technologies, the Swiss company that runs the well-known Protonmail email service, for defamation after two emails were sent using Protonmail by a pseudonymous user, “ConcernedTaxPayer11,” asserting that DRM’s managing director “had engaged in fraudulent activities……