Court Considers Defenses Under Both New York Convention And The FAA In Confirming Domestic Arbitration Award Against Foreign Party

Carlton Fields
Contact

Immersion Corporation, a U.S. company, had previously entered into a settlement with Sony, a Japanese company, regarding the latter’s alleged patent infringement.   Subsequently, a dispute arose surrounding whether Sony was selling a “Royalty Bearing Product” within the meaning of the settlement agreement.  An arbitration was held pursuant to the settlement agreement that found in favor of Immersion, which then sought to confirm the award in court.  Sony put forth three grounds of opposition to the award: (1) under the New York Convention, the award was contrary to public policy because the arbitrator did not allow Sony  to assert an “invalidity” defense; (2) under the FAA, the arbitrator impermissibly refused to hear evidence related to patent infringement that was pertinent and material to the controversy; and (3) under the FAA, the arbitrator committed a manifest disregard of the law “by failing to determine the extent of direct infringement as a necessary predicate for a finding of indirect infringement.”

In ruling on the petition, the court first determined that Sony appropriately argued defenses under both the New York Convention and the FAA.  The former was appropriate, the court explained, because Sony is not a U.S. citizen.  The FAA defenses were also appropriate under Ninth Circuit precedent because the arbitration had been held in the U.S.  The court then turned to the defenses, and determined after a lengthy analysis that public policy had not been violated, that the arbitrator did provide a process to hear material evidence, and that the arbitrator had not committed a “manifest disregard” because it had in fact determined the necessary predicate of indirect infringement under the law.  Accordingly, the court confirmed the award and denied Sony’s motion to vacate.  Immersion Corp. v. Sony Comp. Entertainment America LLC, et al., Case No. 16-cv-00857 (USDC N.D. Cal. May 19, 2016).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Carlton Fields

Written by:

Carlton Fields
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Carlton Fields on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide