1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Court Finds that ICC is Tribunal for Purposes of Section 1782 Discovery Assistance

Court Finds that ICC is Tribunal for Purposes of Section 1782 Discovery Assistance

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.11.08

28 USC 1782 is a US statute authorizing federal courts to grant discovery assistance to persons and entities involved in disputes before a tribunal outside the US. In In re Application of Babcock Borsig AG, CA No. 08-mc-10128-DPW, Oct. 30, 2008, a federal district court in Massachusetts held that the ICC is a "tribunal" within the meaning of section 1782, and thus, the court had the statutory authority to order a person or entity within the US to provide documents or testimony for use in a foreign proceeding(here, an ICC proceeding). In this particular case, however, the court decided not to exercise its discretion to grant the discovery request until it received evidence that the ICC panel would be receptive to material obtained pursuant to section 1782. The growing body of law on this point highlights the importance of section 1782 as a strategic consideration for those involved in disputes outside of the US, if there is a person or entity in the US with evidence bearing on the issues, whether or not that person is a party to the proceedings outside the US.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights