Intellectual Property Lawyers / Investigators with Non-US Clients – Gather US Based Evidence Applying 28 USC 1782
Dispute Support: Collect US-based evidence for a non-US customer
– Ron Alvarez
NEW YORK, NY, USA, June 25, 2021 /EINPresswire.com/ – Three years ago I published an article titled “What is 28 USC 1782?” And why should intellectual property professionals care. “
In the post, I detailed my experience with a private / legal investigative team that benefited from the application of Law 28 USC 1782 to collect evidence of money laundering from several US banks in order to support the dispute from our non-US customer.
In the recent edition of the Brand Protection Professional (BPP), Leah Evert-Burks had a very informative interview with John Zacharia, entitled âA Deep Dive Into the Tools of International Cooperation for Brand Protectionâ. (Zacharia is a distinguished American intellectual property lawyer and former United States Federal Attorney.)
Zacharia was a member of the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) team that produced and authored EUIPO’s recent 126-page study titled âInternational Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. intellectual property â, in which the benefits of using 28 USC 1782 to collect US-based evidence is explained.
INTERVIEW QUESTION AND ANSWER
Burks: Which tool do you think is the most important for EU trademark owners to know?
Zacharia: One that is particularly useful for obtaining US-based evidence to support their cases outside the US is set out in US Federal Law (28 USC Â§ 1782).
By using this law, interested parties in a non-US proceeding can obtain evidence directly from the US courts for use in the foreign proceeding.
EU trademark owners can even use this process to obtain US-based evidence before initiating formal proceedings outside the US. Better yet, by using this tool, EU trademark owners can avoid first going to a non-U.S. Court to obtain substantiated evidence, as the Hague Evidence Convention would otherwise require. .
As a result, US federal law offers EU and other non-US trademark owners a particularly effective tool for obtaining US-based evidence.
REFERENCE OF THE EUIPO REPORT
The EUIPO report reference to 28 USC 1782 is on page 54 and reads as follows:
âOther tools are used in matters of mutual legal assistance at the international level in cases where other specific treaties, such as the Hague Conventions, are not as effective or are not applicable. These are the following. â¢ Direct requests for evidence in foreign courts.
âSome countries have laws authorizing private litigants to initiate legal proceedings outside this country to obtain evidence directly from the competent courts without first submitting such a request to the court of the foreign country.
âThe United States provides an example of this streamlined process. More specifically, Article 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code (entitled “Assistance to Foreign and International Courts and to Persons Before Those Courts”) authorizes an “interested person” in a foreign proceeding or court to obtain evidence. directly to a US federal court having jurisdiction over the evidence at issue for use in the foreign proceeding (157).
âNon-US litigants can even use Section 1782 to obtain evidence before a formal proceeding begins outside the United States. Indeed, Section 1782 provides non-U.S. Litigants with virtually the same ability to obtain evidence located in the United States as litigants based in the United States.
âTherefore, Article 1782 offers at least two advantages over the process of obtaining evidence authorized by the Hague Evidence Convention.
“First, under the Article 1782 process, it is not necessary to have first sought the discovery in a non-US court (as required by the Hague Evidence Convention) because the litigant non-US can make first request for evidence directly authorizes non- US litigants must obtain evidence before a civil lawsuit has started outside the US – allowing non-US litigants to obtain evidence in anticipation of ‘such a lawsuit and without the need to initiate a lawsuit pending outside the United States.
“Most of the requests for evidence under Article 1782 have been filed by European companies.”
For more than two decades, John Zacharia (founder of Zacharia Law) has worked at the forefront of legal issues facing intellectual property owners, becoming one of the leading experts in intellectual property criminal law. in the country.
As Deputy Assistant Chief Legal Officer of the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) of the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice, Zacharia was responsible for overseeing all intellectual property prosecutions and cybercrime carried out by the 40 lawyers in the section.
During his 12 years at CCIPS, Zacharia became one of the most experienced federal prosecutors in intellectual property crimes in the country.
Additionally, Zacharia is the newest member of the BPP Editorial Board.
Leah Evert-Burks is Editor-in-Chief of The Brand Protection Professional (BPP) and Industry Fellow at the Michigan State University Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection, A-CAPP.
Disclaimer: IPPIBlog.com is a service to the professional intellectual property community. While every effort has been made to verify the information on this blog, we make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the content provided in IPPIBlog.com. We accept no responsibility for the qualification or accuracy of statements made by contributors or for any dispute that may arise. It is the responsibility of readers to independently investigate and verify the identifying information of such persons as well as the accuracy and validity of the information provided by them. This blog is for general information only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice.