Perry Street Software, Inc. v. Jedi Technologies, Inc., decided by the Southern District of New York, presents a creative–if not winning–argument by the creator of a dating app in its attempt to force a patent infringement claim into arbitration.

The dating app creator discovered that the claimant’s counsel had downloaded the app under the name “Jediscruff”, acknowledging the Terms of Service (“TOS”) in the browse through agreement, which included an arbitration provision. As the court summarized,

“’Jediscruff’s’ profile picture bears a resemblance to Mr. Haan, and geolocation research revealed that ‘jediscruff’ had accessed the app from a location near Haan’s office. Since Perry Street takes the position that anyone who downloaded the app had to agree (even if passively, via the browsewrap agreement) to its TOS – which included the arbitration clause – it argued that Jedi, for whom the lawyer was working, was required to arbitrate the patent-infringement claim – and was also required, by the terms of the arbitration clause, to arbitrate any dispute over the issue of arbitrability.”

The lawyer’s argument–that he accessed the site for purposes of fulfilling his Rule 11 requirements–satisfied the court for purposes of defeating a motion for temporary injunction to force an arbitration.

JD Supra has published this article by Marc Isserles of JAMS, positing that “[t]he COVID-19 pandemic has been a catalyst for the multi-stage mediation process, both because the shift to videoconference mediations has required experimentation, and because the technology facilitates asynchronous engagement.” 

Michael Wolgin of Carlton Fields has authored this article, available in JD Supra, discussing the court’s recent decision in Diverse Enterprises, Limited Company, L.L.C. v. Beyond International, Inc., affirming an award of attorneys’ fees based on a multiplier.

Lexology has published this article by Sylvia Rivera of Morrison & Foerster LLP, which poses the following question: “If a company enters an arbitration agreement with a consumer, can its future affiliate companies enforce the arbitration agreement even though the affiliate relationship did not exist at the time the consumer signed the agreement?”

In Shirley v. FMC Technologies, Inc., a Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas recommended the confirmation of an arbitrator’s award over objections that the parties’ agreement did not authorize him to address the dispute between the parties. As the court explained, the arbitration provision undeniably empowered the arbitrator to determine his jurisdiction, “including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.” Consequently, according to the court, “[i]t is not enough to show that the arbitrator committed an error-or even a serious error. Because the parties bargained for the arbitrator’s construction of their agreement, an arbitral decision even arguably construing or applying the contract must stand, regardless of a court’s view of its (de)merits.”

Christina Gallo of Carlton Fields offers this take in JD Supra on the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC and the Boeing Company.

Law.com has published this article by Conor B. Dugan of Warner Norcross + Judd, discussing the court’s decision in Blanton v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising, No. 19-2388. As Mr. Dugan explains, the court held that “an arbitration agreement that incorporates the American Arbitration Association’s National Rules of Resolution of Employment Disputes gives ‘clear and unmistakable’ evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate the question of whether the dispute at issue is itself arbitrable.”

This insightful article by Dr. Kark Mackie of CEDR, recently published on Lexology , discusses the following:

1. Inadequate Preparation
2. The Wrong Team
3. Clients who are Blind to their Risks in Litigation
4. Overconfident Advisers and Experts
5. Tactical Failures and Glass Half-Full

The court’s decision in Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Corporacion de Television y Microonda Rafa, S.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-8669-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020) is the subject of this JD Supra article by Benjamin Stearns of Carlton Fields.

The Georgia Court of Appeals has granted a motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by an individual who suffered serious injuries on a trampoline when he was seventeen years old and forged his father’s signature on a click-through agreement. The court rejected claims that the agreement to arbitrate was unenforceable because executed by a minor or that the contract was unconscionable.