Nolan M. Goldberg is a senior counsel in the Litigation Department and a member of the Patent Law Group. As an intellectual property litigator, his practice focuses on patent, trademark, and trade secret litigation and counseling. Nolan's work has included patent and trade secret litigations and negotiations concerning optical cross-connects; voice-over Internet protocol ("VoIP"); bar code scanners; computer networking; financial business methods and software, including securities settlement, fail management and trade execution and reporting software; data storage; handheld computers; least-cost routing; pharmaceuticals; cardiac electro-stimulatory devices and prosthetics. Nolan also has experience prosecuting patent applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in encryption, CMOS, HDTV, virtual private networks ("VPN"), e-commerce, XML/XSL, financial instruments, semiconductor electronics, medical device technology, inventory control and analysis, cellular communications, Check 21 and business methods. Nolan also has conducted numerous freedom-to-operate searches, written opinions, and counseled clients in the areas of bar code scanners, imaging, book publishing, computer networking, business methods, Power Over Ethernet ("PoE"), and digital content distribution. He has assisted in evaluating patents for inclusion in patent pools involving large consumer electronics and entertainment companies concerning CD and DVD technology.
Litigants navigating the conflict between U.S. discovery obligations and foreign data protection laws have a new ally, the American Bar Association (“the ABA”). The ABA recently passed Resolution 103, which “urges” that: [W]here possible in the context of the proceedings before them, U.S. federal, state, territorial, tribal and local courts consider and respect, as appropriate, the… Continue Reading
Where U.S. litigation discovery obligations were argued to be in conflict with foreign civil and criminal privacy statutes, many recent opinions found that discovery should proceed under the Federal Rules over the protest of the foreign data custodians. However, in SEC v. Stanford International Bank Ltd, the court departed from this pattern in finding that discovery should first proceed under the Hague convention in the interest of comity. While it is unclear the extent to which this approach will be followed by other courts in the future, the Stanford opinion illustrates that it is possible for litigants and third parties to successfully navigate cross border discovery conflicts even where privacy interests are at stake.
Our April 1, 2010 blog entry discussed the March 8, 2010 Order in Gucci Amer., Inc. v. Curveal Fashion, No. 09 Civ. 8458 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Order”), compelling the third-party U.S. parent (the “U.S. Parent”) of a foreign bank, to produce documents located at its subsidiary, despite claims that such production was illegal under Malaysian banking secrecy laws. The entry concluded by noting the no-win situation that foreign corporations continue to be placed in by the tension between U.S. courts and foreign law. Subsequent history in this matter further illustrates the seriousness of this predicament.
On March 8, 2010 the SDNY issued the latest opinion addressing the conflict between U.S. discovery laws and foreign blocking statutes. In Gucci Amer., Inc. v. Curveal Fashion, the court compelled a third-party to produce documents located at its subsidiary despite claims that such production was illegal under the Malaysian law. This opinion illustrates the no-win situation that foreign corporations continue to be placed in by the tension between U.S. courts and foreign law, and underscores the importance of raising foreign-law based discovery objections as early and in as detailed a manner as possible in order to maximize the chances of successfully navigating this conflict.