Extraterritoriality

Abitron Eliminates Circuit Tests but Causes More Confusion

During the oral argument in Abitron Austria GMBH v. Hetronic International, Inc., Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Barrett all expressed concern over whether the Court should overrule its 1952 decision in Steele v. Bulova Watch Co (1952). A reader of the Court’s majority decision by Justice Alito might be surprised to see that the majority…

Continue Reading

Two New Supreme Court Decisions on the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality

The end of the Supreme Court’s term brought two decisions on the presumption against extraterritoriality, a significant and contested interpretive canon for federal statutes. Yegiazaryan v. Smagin ruled 6-3 that a civil RICO suit based on an alleged scheme to fraudulently conceal assets belonging to a U.S. judgment debtor had sufficient domestic content to fit…

Continue Reading

What is a “Domestic Application” of the Lanham Act? The Supreme Court Creates More Questions than It Answers

In Abitron Austria Gmbh v. Hetronic International, Inc., the Supreme Court appears to have returned to its recent preference for bright-line rules in cases assessing the extraterritoriality of federal statutes, but the brightness of this rule will dim as other fact patterns are considered.

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Holds that Trademark Statute Applies Only to Domestic Conduct

Last week, in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the federal trademark statute—known as the Lanham Act—applies only to domestic conduct infringing U.S. trademarks. The case involved foreign companies that put U.S.-protected trademarks on products that they made in Europe, most of which were sold to customers abroad, but…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Holds Lanham Act Does Not Apply Extraterritorially

In Abitron Austria v. Hectronic International, the Supreme Court held that the federal trademark statute does not apply extraterritoriality, with the majority emphasizing that conduct relevant to the statute’s focus must occur within the United States.

Continue Reading

Smagin‘s Surprises

Last week’s decision in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin was surprising in a number of respects, from the line-up of the Justices to the possible shift it signals in the presumption against extraterritoriality.

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Approves Using Civil RICO to Help Enforce Arbitral Awards

Last week, the Supreme Court held in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin that civil RICO can be used to help enforce foreign arbitral awards. Specifically, the Court held that concealing assets to avoid paying a U.S. judgment that confirmed a foreign arbitral award could satisfy civil RICO’s “domestic injury” requirement, allowing the award-creditor to pursue a claim…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court decides Yegiazaryan v. Smagin

The Supreme Court just released its opinion in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin.   For prior coverage on TLB by Bill Dodge see here, here, here, and here. The issue in the case was whether the plaintiff adequately plead a domestic injury under RICO.  The foreign plaintiff alleged that the defendants worked together illegally to frustrate his collection…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California

Thirty years ago next week, the Supreme Court addressed the extraterritorial reach of U.S. antitrust laws in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California. The Court reiterated that the Sherman Act applies to anticompetitive conduct abroad that causes substantial intended effects in the United States, but it divided sharply over the role of “international comity.” Writing…

Continue Reading

Extraterritorial Application of Federal Securities Law After Morrison

In Morrison v. National Australia Bank (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court applied the presumption against extraterritoriality to the principal antifraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act, section 10(b). It held that section 10(b) applies “only [to] transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges, and domestic transactions in other securities.” As I have explained elsewhere, Morrison…

Continue Reading

Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk

Vanderbilt Law School
ingrid.wuerth@vanderbilt.eduEmail

William Dodge

George Washington University Law School
william.dodge@law.gwu.eduEmail

Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law School
mgardner@cornell.eduEmail

John F. Coyle

University of North Carolina School of Law
jfcoyle@email.unc.eduEmail

Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
zclopton@law.northwestern.eduEmail

Symeon Symeonides

Willamette University College of Law
Bio | Posts

Aaron D. Simowitz

Willamette University College of Law
Bio | Posts

John B. Bellinger

Arnold & Porter LLP
Bio | Posts

R. Reeves Anderson

Arnold & Porter LLP
Bio | Posts

Volodymyr Ponomarov

Arnold & Porter LLP
Bio | Posts

Robin Effron

Brooklyn Law School
Bio | Posts

Scott Dodson

UC Law – San Francisco
Bio | Posts

Hannah Buxbaum

Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Bio | Posts

Paul MacMahon

LSE Law School
Bio | Posts

Satjit Singh Chhabra

Khaitan and Co
Bio | Posts

Keshav Somani

Khaitan and Co.
Bio | Posts

Kartikey Mahajan

Khaitan and Co.
Bio | Posts