The first time I testified in court in Taiwan, I spoke English and the judge translated simultaneously for the attorneys and clerks. After fifteen years here, I speak enough Chinese to direct taxi drivers, but not enough to discuss complex licensing negotiations. Fortunately, our judge earned her law degree in the U.S., is fluent in English and was kind enough to help out.
The second time was different. The judge gave no indication that he spoke English, so the opposing witness and I each brought an interpreter. My interpreter regularly handles Taiwan legal proceedings and rode the subway twenty minutes to get to the hearing, as did I, while our adversary flew a lawyer, translator and witness from London, with the corresponding costs of airfare, hotel, meals and time.
Of course, that was why we sued them in Taiwan. Well, that and the fact that our adversary would be forced to try the case in Chinese, struggling with jet lag, unfamiliar procedures and potential bias, while my client would be comfortably on home turf, using native language, avoiding the hassles and costs of U.S. litigation. But I suppose I should start at the beginning. Continue reading
Global commerce often leads to litigation and the need to obtain evidence from foreign parties and witnesses. However, in most Asian (and other civil law) countries, discovery is conducted by judges, not attorneys, depositions and other formal discovery procedures do not exist, and attempts by foreign litigants to gather evidence contrary to local laws may be seen as violations of national sovereignty, for which criminal sanctions may be assessed.
Fortunately, lawful methods exist for U.S. litigants to depose parties and non-parties in most countries. Primarily, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and corresponding state laws authorize the taking of foreign depositions pursuant to (a) treaty or convention, (b) letters of request or letters rogatory, (c) deposition notice, or (d) before a consular officer; and the Hague Convention on Taking of Evidence Abroad authorizes depositions before a consular officer or pursuant to letters rogatory.
However, each of those options has flaws. Singapore and South Korea are parties to the Hague Convention, but Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines are not. China is a party to the Convention, but strictly prohibits depositions. The letters rogatory process takes many months and results in not a real deposition, but only the submission of written questions for a judge to convey to the deponent. A deposition notice is useless against a non-party witness who refuses to comply. And taking depositions before a consular officer is troublesome, as reservations must be made long in advance and one cannot bring cell-phones and laptops into embassies or consular offices.
In short, plenty of depositions take place in Asia, but there are myriad legal and practical complications, so it is critical that U.S. counsel plan well in advance, informing the presiding judge of the plans, consulting with foreign counsel, and carefully observing best practices concerning the following matters, to ensure that the process will succeed and testimony will be admissible in court. Continue reading
As Legal Director at a multi-billion dollar tech company, I spent several years retaining and managing outside counsel to assist with global litigation, transactions and other matters, striving to satisfy the seemingly insatiable demands of upper-management. Cost-reduction was our corporate mantra, with every matter closely scrutinized and every fee seen as too high.
While I was fortunate to work with many outstanding attorneys from around the world, I found that counsel often excel in a particular area of expertise, but fail to look after the best interests of their client. Sound management of counsel is therefore critical. Below are ten lessons that I learned. Continue reading
Last week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed criminal convictions against AU Optronics (“AUO”), a Taiwanese maker of Thin-Film Liquid Crystal Display (“TFT-LCD”) panels, its U.S. subsidiary and two of its top executives, for illegal price-fixing that resulted in prison sentences of thirty-six months for each of the individuals and a $500 million fine for AUO. The case offers many stark lessons to global manufacturers whose employees may communicate with competitors about the pricing and supply of their products.
Initially, AUO was one of several leading TFT-LCD manufacturers indicted in the Northern District of California for conspiring to fix prices for TFT-LCDs in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, based on a series of meetings that took place between the alleged conspirators. In the meetings, the defendants discussed prices at which they would sell TFT-LCDs to their U.S. customers, including Dell, Compaq and HP.
AUO was the only accused company to take the case to trial, with rivals including LG Display, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Chi Mei Optoelectronics and Sharp Corp. all pleading guilty and paying a total of more than $890 million in fines. At trial, the jury found AUO and its executives guilty and imposed the $500 million fine. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the AUO convictions and fine. While the decision addresses many points, a few are particularly noteworthy. Continue reading
PricewaterhouseCoopers has just released its comprehensive annual study of U.S. patent litigation, covering the period from 1991 through 2013. Examining everything from litigation success rates, time-to-trial and median damage awards to comparisons of judges, districts, jury v. bench trials and non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) v. practicing entities (“PEs”), the report is a treasure trove of fascinating statistics.
The report concludes that, “in some ways, 2013 appeared to be a moderating year in patent infringement litigation,” with fewer mega-damage awards and a continuing decline in median damages, but on the other hand, “both the number of patent cases filed and the number of patents granted continued to grow rapidly in 2013 – by 25% (to almost 6,500 cases) and 7% (to almost 300,000 patents) respectively.”
Just a few highlights of the report are set forth below: Continue reading
In two 9-0 decisions, the US Supreme Court just made it easier for the winning party to recover its attorney fees in US patent lawsuits. In Octane Fitness v. ICON, the Court relaxed the standard for recovering attorney fees and in Highmark v. Allcare Health Management, the Court made it harder for the Federal Circuit to second-guess district courts on a party’s bad conduct.
The US Patent Act allows a successful party in patent litigation to recover its attorney fees in “exceptional cases.” In the Octane case, the Fed Circuit ruled that such cases required both objective baselessness and subjective bad faith. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding “A case presenting either subjective bad faith or exceptionally meritless claims may sufficiently set itself apart from mine-run cases to warrant a fee award.”
In the Highmark case, a district court awarded Highmark $5.2 million in attorney fees after finding it was the subject of a frivolous patent infringement suit. The plaintiff in the underlying action appealed the decision and the Fed Circuit re-heard arguments on attorney fees and came to a different decision. The Supreme Court found the Fed Circuit should have left the judge’s decision alone unless it found the court acted unreasonably.
Read more on these two cases HERE
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” We’ve all heard those words a thousand times in crime dramas, as the cops handcuff the bad guy and haul him away. Most lawyers recognize that as part of the Miranda warning, uttered by police in criminal cases to avoid violating the suspect’s rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
What many don’t know, especially here in Asia, is the Fifth Amendment may also provide a valid excuse – even for foreign citizens – to avoid testifying in a U.S. civil lawsuit. On its face, the Fifth Amendment appears to be limited to criminal cases. It states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” However, courts have long held that the Fifth Amendment privilege “can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.” Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445 (1972).
Consequently, it is not uncommon for witnesses in civil lawsuits to refuse to answer deposition questions based on that privilege, so long as the testimony could possibly lead to criminal liability. At first, the tactic may seem an easy way out for the witness. However, there are serious risks to invoking – or not invoking – the privilege, so anyone for whom the subject may be relevant should consult with experienced Fifth Amendment counsel. Continue reading
Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court approved the payment of $308 million in attorney fees to 116 law firms in a single case (In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation, N.D. Cal.), with one firm receiving $75 million in fees and another receiving $49 million. While that case may be an extreme example, the median hourly rate for partners in U.S. law firms is $625 per hour and the average patent lawsuit requires $2.5 million in attorney fees. Is it any wonder people complain about attorney fees?
Fortunately, by managing litigation effectively, those costs can be greatly reduced. For several years I served as Director of Legal at a multi-billion dollar tech company based in Taiwan and was responsible for resolving all disputes and litigation. Cost-down was our corporate mantra, with every invoice closely scrutinized by management. Below are a few of the lessons I learned. Continue reading
On March 28, Apple Inc. appeared in court in Shanghai to defend charges that Siri, its voice-recognition, personal-assistant software, allegedly infringes a Chinese patent. The plaintiff and owner of the patent, Zhizhen Internet Technology Co., claims its version of the software has over 100 million users in China and is requesting the court to ban all manufacturing or sales of Apple’s product in China.
This was not the first time Apple faced patent infringement claims in China. Last summer a Taiwanese man sued the company in China for alleged infringement relating to its Facetime technology; in 2010 a Shenzhen company threatened to sue concerning iPad design; in 2008 Apple was sued for the iPod; and in 2012, a Hong Kong company launched GooPhone I5, an android-based replica of the iPhone 5, reportedly based on leaked photos of the iPhone. GooPhone claimed to have patented the design and threatened to sue Apple if it dared to sell the genuine article in China.
Nor is Apple alone. French company, Schneider Electric lost a $48 million patent infringement verdict in China and Samsung lost one for $7.4 million. Sony, Phillips, Canon and Dell have all had their battles and GooPhone sells knockoffs of other smartphones in China with apparent impunity. Of course it’s possible in some cases the Chinese technology may be first and the Chinese patent legitimate. However, foreign companies face a growing risk that Chinese entities may unscrupulously patent foreign technology in China and demand a toll to do business there. Not only that, but in coming years companies will increasingly face challenges worldwide from the growing landslide of patents coming out of China. Continue reading
As technologies develop, courts worldwide are increasingly open to allowing service of legal documents by new means, including by FedEx, e-mail, Facebook and Twitter. In line with that general trend, last week a District Court in New York authorized service upon certain defendants located in India by means of e-mail and Facebook.
The case, FTC v. PCCare247 Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2013), involves allegations that several individuals located in India operated a scheme that tricked American consumers into spending money to fix non-existent problems with their computers. The FTC applied to the court and obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants’ business practices and freezing some of their assets.
Because India is a signatory to the Hague Convention on Service Abroad, the FTC submitted the Summons and Complaint to the Indian Central Authority, requesting service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 4(f)(1) and Article 3 of the Hague Convention. The FTC also attempted to serve process on the defendants by e-mail, FedEx and personal service. FedEx confirmed delivery for most of the defendants and a process server personally served all of the defendants. Continue reading