-
Case of the Day: Smart Study v. Acuteye
The case of the day is Smart Study Co., Ltd. v. Acuteye-US (S.D.N.Y. 2022). It’s too soon to declare victory, but this is yet another case correctly holding that when the Service Convention applies and the state of destination has objected to service by postal channels, service by email is forbidden. The case involved a……
-
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……