Copyright
| Pages | 30-32 |
30 Volume 18, April–June 2012 international law update
© 2012 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
Anti-suit
injunction
Where Defendants seek anti-suit
injunction in Singapore, Second Circuit
affirms the issuance of an anti-suit
injunction, finding that the district
court properly exercised its discretion
in preventing a clear threat to its
jurisdiction over the case
Defendants, Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore)
PTE, Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC,
Morgan Stanley Capital Services Incorporated,
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and Pinnacle
Performance Limited (“Pinnacle”), appeal from
an order of the district court issuing a preliminary
injunction prohibiting the Defendants from pursuing
their own anti-suit injunction in the Republic
of Singapore. Such an injunction would require
the Plaintis to litigate their claims exclusively in
Singapore. e Defendants also seek review of the
district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss the
Plaintis’ complaint for forum non conveniens or
due to the forum selection clause included in the
contracts upon which the suit is based.
e United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit arms the district court’s issuance
of the anti-suit injunction. e Court notes that in
order to issue such an injunction, the court must
address the propriety of the injunction under the
“China Trade Test” and then determine whether it
is appropriate to enter a preliminary injunction. e
Court holds that that district court was correct in
determining that the Plaintis satised both tests.
“Faced with this clear threat to its jurisdiction over
the case, the district court properly exercised its
discretion in nding that this factor weighed heavily
against Appellants. . . . We agree with the district
court that Appellees have demonstrated irreparable
harm through the actual and imminent possibility
that they will be enjoined from prosecuting their suit
in this, or in any other non-Singaporean, forum, and
that there are suciently serious questions going to
the merits.” [Slip op. 5] (internal quotation omitted).
With regard to the motion to dismiss, the
Court declines to address it, remanding it to the
district court to determine the question of personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants.
citation: Leng v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No.
11-5150-cv (2nd Cir., Apr. 10, 2012).
coPYRiGHt
Fourth Circuit holds that Copyright
Act has extraterritorial reach when the
type of infringement permits further
reproduction abroad
A group of companies (jointly “Alpha”) sued two
groups of foreign companies (“Al Dobowi,” based in
the United Arab Emirates; and “Linglong,” based in
China) for copyright infringement. Alpha develops
and sells specialized tires for underground mining
vehicles, trademarked as “Mine Mauler.” Alpha led
copyright registrations for its tire designs.
It appears that a former Alpha employee gained
access to condential documents about the Alpha
tires and its customers, and shared them with
others, including Al Dobowi. Linglong agreed to
manufacture the tires, which were then sold under
the brand name “Innity.” Alpha soon noticed the
similarity of Innity tires with its own Mine Mauler
tires, and led a lawsuit in October 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Eventually, the jury found for Alpha and awarded
$26 million in damages.
Al Dobowi and Linglong appeal, challenging
the verdict and the district court’s exercise of
jurisdiction.
e U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit arms in part, reverses in part, and vacates
in part. e Court nds that the district court
properly exercised jurisdiction over the defendants,
and arms the judgment as to the Copyright Act
and conversion claims, as well as the jury’s damages
award. However, the Court dismisses the remaining
claims submitted to the jury, and vacates the award
of attorneys’ fees.
As for the merits of the case, Al Dobowi and
Linglong argue that the e Copyright Act of 1976
(An Act for the general revision of the Copyright
Law, title 17 of the United States Code, and for
To continue reading
Request your trial