1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Court Finds that ICC is Tribunal for Purposes of Section 1782 Discovery Assistance

Court Finds that ICC is Tribunal for Purposes of Section 1782 Discovery Assistance

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.11.08

28 USC 1782 is a US statute authorizing federal courts to grant discovery assistance to persons and entities involved in disputes before a tribunal outside the US. In In re Application of Babcock Borsig AG, CA No. 08-mc-10128-DPW, Oct. 30, 2008, a federal district court in Massachusetts held that the ICC is a "tribunal" within the meaning of section 1782, and thus, the court had the statutory authority to order a person or entity within the US to provide documents or testimony for use in a foreign proceeding(here, an ICC proceeding). In this particular case, however, the court decided not to exercise its discretion to grant the discovery request until it received evidence that the ICC panel would be receptive to material obtained pursuant to section 1782. The growing body of law on this point highlights the importance of section 1782 as a strategic consideration for those involved in disputes outside of the US, if there is a person or entity in the US with evidence bearing on the issues, whether or not that person is a party to the proceedings outside the US.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26

Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow

In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity....

View All Insights