International Comity

International comity refers to deference to other countries that is not required by international law. The principle of international comity animates many different doctrines, which can be grouped into three categories: those that defer to foreign governments as litigants (“sovereign party comity”), those that defer to foreign lawmakers (“prescriptive comity”), and those that defer to foreign courts (“adjudicative comity”). Within each of these categories, “positive” comity doctrines use comity as a principle of recognition (such as the recognition of foreign judgments or the application of foreign law), while negative comity doctrines use comity as a principle of restraint (such as foreign sovereign immunity or the act of state doctrine).

When courts refer to the “doctrine of comity” or “comity abstention,” they often mean deference to parallel litigation in foreign courts or foreign bankruptcy proceedings. The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, however, have invoked “international comity abstention” more broadly to dismiss cases based on foreign relations concerns.

A Primer on International Comity

The Supreme Court in Hilton v. Guyot (1895) famously defined international comity as “the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation.” That definition is incomplete, however, as comity encompasses much more than the recognition of foreign acts. The Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law…

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

W.D. Texas Asserts the Exclusivity of U.S. Jurisdiction in Patent Cases

Patent disputes often create jurisdictional conflict. A lot of attention recently has been focused on complex and policy-laden litigation involving standard essential patents, but garden-variety infringement claims can lead to challenges too. A federal court in Texas recently issued an anti-suit injunction blocking parallel litigation in China in such a claim. Its order asserted that…

Continue Reading

Greenpeace Anti-SLAPP Suit Blocked by International Antisuit Injunction

In 2019, Energy Transfer, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, sued Greenpeace International, a Dutch foundation, in North Dakota state court. Last year, Greenpeace responded with an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) lawsuit against Energy Transfer in Dutch court. In the latest twist in this lengthy dispute, the North Dakota Supreme Court issued…

Continue Reading

Waco Judge Enjoins Litigation of U.S. Patents in Germany

Judge Alan D Albright (Western District of Texas) loves patent cases. Before his appointment as a district judge in 2018, he was a patent litigator. After his appointment, he “went on a media blitz, letting everyone know that his court would welcome patent litigation.” As detailed here, Judge Albright adopted standing orders that promised speedy…

Continue Reading