Search for cases

CISG-online number
5547
Case name
Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp.
Jurisdiction
USA
Court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Judge
Roger T. Benitez (District Judge)
Date of decision
31 March 2021
Case nr./docket nr.
3:18-cv-00373-BEN-MSB
Claimant 1
Name
Pulse Electronics, Inc.
Place of business
USA
Role in transaction
Owner of intellectual property infringed by the goods sold
Respondent 1
Name
U.D. Electronic Corp.
Place of business
Taiwan
Role in transaction
Seller
Case History
Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
USA, 16 March 2021 – 3:18-cv-00373-BEN-MSB, CISG-online 5532
Present decision
Seller 1
Name
U.D. Electronic Corp.
Place of business
Taiwan
Role in trade
Manufacturer of the goods sold
Buyer 1
Name
Numerous (unspecified) buyers in various countries
Place of business
Unspecified
Category of goods
77: Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances, not elsewhere specified, and electrical parts thereof (including non- electrical counterparts, not elsewhere specified, of electrical household-type equipment)
Goods as per contract
Integrated connector modules (ICMs)
CISG applicable
yes, Art. 1(1)(a)
CISG applied
yes, in determing the
Key CISG provisions interpreted and applied
Art. 93 (status of Taiwan under the CISG)
CISG provisions also cited
Art. 3(1); Art. 53; Art. 66; Art. 67(1)
Relevant CISG provisions not cited
Art. 95
Non-provision-specific issues addressed
Status of Taiwan under the CISG
This decision cites the following other CISG-online cases 8
Urica, Inc. v. Pharmaplast S.A.E.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
USA, 08 August 2014 – CV 11-02476 MMM RZX, CISG-online 2952
Food Team International, Ltd. v. Unilink LLC et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
USA, 17 May 2012 – 10-cv-03584, CISG-online 2327
Golden-Legion Automotive Corp. et al. v. LUSA Industries, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
USA, 04 October 2010 – CV 09-05962 MMM (CWx), CISG-online 5498
Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Super Electric Motors, Ltd
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
USA, 23 December 2009 – 4:09 CV 00318 SWW, CISG-online 2045
Innotex Precision Ltd. v. Horei Image Products, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
USA, 17 December 2009 – 1:09-CV-547-TWT, CISG-online 2044
Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté USA, Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
USA, 10 November 2003 – C-01-4203 MMC, CISG-online 809
Chemical cleaning product equipment case
China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC)
Arbitration, 20 April 1999 – CISG/1999/23, CISG-online 1807
Attorneys Trust and CMC Magnetics Corp. v. Videotape Computer Products Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
USA, 20 August 1996 – 95-55410, CISG-online 441
Decision published in 2
530 Federal Supplement, Third Series (F. Supp. 3d) 988–1033 [Full text – in English]
2021 Westlaw (WL) 1226470 [Full text – in English]
Comments on this decision 2
Claude Witz, Ben Köhler & Francis Limbach, 'Panorama: Droit uniforme de la vente internationale de marchandises (janvier 2020 - juin 2021)', Recueil Dalloz (D.) (2021), 2017–2027, at 2019 [– in French]
Candace M. Zierdt & Kristen David Adams, 'CISG', 77 Business Lawyer (Bus. Law.) (Fall 2022), 1345–1356, at 1350–1353 [– in English]  
Full text of decision 1
Full text of decision
Original language: English