Tulip Computers International B v. v. Dell Computer Corp.
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4735, 2003 WL 1491670, 254 F. Supp. 2d 469 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When discovery is sought from a non-party foreign national residing in a signatory country and not otherwise subject to the court's jurisdiction, the use of the Hague Evidence Convention is appropriate and virtually compulsory.
Facts:
- Tulip Computers International B.V. ('Tulip'), a Dutch corporation, holds U.S. Patent No. 5,594,621.
- Tulip accused Dell Computer Corporation ('Dell'), a Delaware corporation, of infringing this patent.
- In its defense, Dell asserted that Tulip's patent was invalid and unenforceable.
- Mr. Gerardus Franciscus Duynisveld and Mr. Frans Dietz are former employees or associates of Tulip who Dell believes have knowledge relevant to its defenses.
- Both Mr. Duynisveld and Mr. Dietz are citizens of the Netherlands and reside there.
- Mr. Duynisveld and Mr. Dietz are not parties to the patent infringement lawsuit and are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. court.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Tulip Computers International B.V. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Defendant Dell Computer Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the court of first instance).
- Dell filed an answer, denying infringement and asserting affirmative defenses that the patent was invalid and unenforceable.
- During the discovery phase of the litigation, Dell filed motions requesting the court to issue letters of request for international judicial assistance to obtain evidence from two non-party witnesses in the Netherlands.
- Tulip filed an opposition to Dell's motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is it appropriate for a federal court to grant a request for international judicial assistance under the Hague Evidence Convention to obtain discovery from non-party foreign nationals who are not subject to the court's jurisdiction, despite objections regarding privilege and the request's potential breadth?
Opinions:
Majority - Jordan, District Judge
Yes. Resort to the Hague Evidence Convention is appropriate because the individuals from whom discovery is sought are non-parties to the lawsuit, are citizens of the Netherlands, are not subject to the court's jurisdiction, and have not voluntarily subjected themselves to discovery. The Convention provides a permissive alternative to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for obtaining evidence abroad, and its use is 'virtually compulsory' for non-parties in foreign jurisdictions. Objections regarding privilege and the scope of the discovery requests do not justify denying the motion entirely, as the Convention itself, under Article 11, allows the witnesses to assert privilege, and the judicial authorities of the executing state (the Netherlands) are competent to narrow any overly broad requests in accordance with their own laws and the Convention's Article 23 reservation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle established in Aerospatiale that the Hague Evidence Convention is a primary and effective tool of international comity for obtaining evidence from non-parties abroad. It demonstrates that U.S. courts will generally defer to the foreign tribunal to resolve specific objections concerning privilege and the scope of discovery, rather than denying a request for assistance at the outset. This approach streamlines international discovery by placing trust in the procedures of the executing state, thereby respecting foreign sovereignty while facilitating the gathering of evidence for U.S. litigation.
