The case of the day is Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Bossland GmbH, from the Landgericht Leipzig. It came to my attention thanks to eagle-eyed reader Lukas Heinemann. Blizzard had a $8 million default judgment against Bossland from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case arose out of alleged violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Blizzard sought recognition and enforcement in Germany.
Tagged: Germany, public, Recognition and Enforcement
The case of the day is Manchester v. Sivantos GmbH (C.D. Cal. 2018). Deborah Manchester sued Sivantos, a German company, alleging a misappropriation of her trade secrets, which related to hearing aid technology. She served process on Sivantos by serving the documents on Sivantos, Inc., an affiliate, on the theory that Sivantos, Inc. was Sivantos GmbH’s “general manager” (under California law, which is incorporated in federal law when service is being made in the United States, such service is sufficient; FRCP 4(h)(1)(B) refers instead to a “managing or general agent”). Sivantos moved to dismiss. The court held that Manchester had not met her burden to show that the service was proper, but that with discovery she might be able to. So the court granted…
Tagged: Germany, Hague Service Convention
The case of the day is In re Mutual Assistance to the Local Court of Wetzlar, Germany (E.D. Cal. 2018). The opinion doesn’t give the facts in any detail, but we know from the application that the case is a child custody dispute, in which the mother and child lived in Germany and the father lived in California. Via the Hague Evidence Convention, the Amtsgericht Wetzlar sent a letter of request to the US central authority, asking for the father to answer several questions in writing. The US Attorney’s Office sought the father’s voluntary cooperation, but when that was not forthcoming, an AUSA applied to the court for appointment as a commissioner for purposes of executing the letter of request.
Tagged: Germany, Hague Evidence Convention