Arbitration

• Pages: 82-88

82 Volume 20, October–December 2014 international law update

© 2014 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com

been sucient to exclude Lotes from the market.

Indeed, the U.S. patents are so incidental to the

alleged scheme that the complaint does not even

bother to mention them except as part of the

background of the relevant Chinese patents. See

J.A. at 51 (explaining that the Chinese patents

‘claim priority to’ the U.S. patents, and thus ‘the

specications of these U.S. patents must support

all claims in the corresponding Chinese patents’);

J.A. 54 (similarly discussing the U.S. patents as

background). Read as a whole, the complaint makes

perfectly clear that the true source of Lotes’s injury

is the ‘[d]efendants’ willingness to bring suit against

Lotes in contravention of the USB-IF RAND-Zero

terms.’ J.A. 58.” [753 F. 3d at 415]

e Court arms the District Court’s decision.

citation: Lotes Co., Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision

Industry Co., 753 F. 3d 395 (2nd Cir. 2014).

ARBITRATION

Reviewing contract dispute originating

in the Congo, District of Columbia

Circuit ponders whether the Federal

Arbitration Act preempts the D.C.

Uniform Foreign-Country Money

Judgments Recognition Act

Commissions Import Export S.A. (“the

Company”) entered in the 1980s into contracts

with Republic of the Congo (“the Congo”) to

perform public works and supply materials. e

contracts were nanced by Caisse Congolaise

d’Amortissement (“CCA”) through supplier credits

that were formalized through promissory notes

issued by CCA and guaranteed by the Congo.

In 1992, the parties signed an agreement for the

repayment of certain outstanding debts owed to

the Company under the contracts. e repayment

had to be done over ten years in equal, consecutive

monthly payments. Furthermore, the agreement

provided that any disputes arising from or relating

to the agreement would be resolved by nal binding

arbitration under the Rules of the International

Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”).

In 1998, when the Congo failed to pay the

promised amounts as they came due, and did not

respond to the Company’s formal demand, the

Company led a request for arbitration with the

International Court of Arbitration of the ICC. On

December 3, 2000, the arbitral tribunal in Paris

issued a nal award in favor of the Company (“the

Award”). On December 12, 2000, the Award was

summarily conrmed by the Tribunal de Grande

Instance of Paris. After the Congo appealed to

rescind the Award, on May 23, 2002, the Court of

Appeals of Paris upheld the Award. To enforce the

Award in France, the Company led eleven judicial

enforcement proceedings and 82 non-judicial

baili actions.

Pursuant to the New York Convention, the

Company obtained judicial recognition of the

Award in Belgium and Sweden, but obtained no

recovery on the amounts owed. On June 17, 2009,

the Company initiated proceedings pursuant to

the Convention in the Queen’s Bench Division of

the high Court of Justice, Commercial Court in

London. On July 10 2009, the High Court entered

an order ruling that the Award was enforceable

in the same manner as a judgment under section

101 of the 1996 Arbitration Act of England (“the

English Judgment”). Under English law, the

judgment became nal, conclusive, and enforceable

on March 2, 2010, and remains enforceable for six

years from that date. On November 1, 2011, the

High Court amended the judgment to account for

the Company’s successful seizure of French Francs

in partial satisfaction of the Award.

On September 2, 2011, the Company led

a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of New York to recognize and

enforce the English Judgment under the New

York Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments

Recognition Act, N.Y. C.P.L.R. Article 53. e

federal court for the Southern District of New

York transferred the case to the federal court in

the District of Columbia. e Company amended

and supplemented its complaint to recognize and

enforce the English Judgment under the D.C.