A group of outstanding scholars filed an amicus brief in support of my petition for cert. in Changzhou SinoType v. Rockefeller Technology. The group includes (in alphabetical order) George Bermann (Columbia), Hannah Buxbaum (Indiana), John Coyle (UNC), Robin Effron (Brooklyn), Maggie Gardner (Cornell), David Stewart (Georgetown), and Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams). Andrew Hessick, Richard Simpson, Joseph Gross, and Jared Hubbard were counsel to the amici.
Tagged: Hague Service Convention
I’ve occasionally remarked about an odd feature of FRCP 4(f)(2). Rule 4(f)(1) authorizes methods of service that an international convention authorizes (e.g., the central authority mechanism in the Hague Service Convention or the Additional Protocol to the Inter-American Convention). Rule 4(f)(2) authorizes certain other methods of service, but only “if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means.” This works great for the Inter-American Convention, because that Convention is non-exclusive. It doesn’t exhaustively list every available method of service, but that’s okay, because it doesn’t forbid any methods of service. In other words, it “allows but does not specify” other methods. But the rule doesn’t fit the Hague Service Convention, which is exclusive. If…
Tagged: Hague Service Convention
The case of the day is Anova Applied Electronics, Inc. v. Hong King Group, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 465 (D. Mass. 2020). Anova, a kitchen appliance manufacturer, sued Hong King, a Chinese firm, and other Chinese companies for trademark and trade dress infringement. It sought leave to serve process by email under FRCP 4(f)(3).
Tagged: China, Email, Hague Service Convention