Rovio Entertainment Corporation v. Ace Air Art Inflatable Decorations Store
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-04139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rovio Entertainment v. Ace Air Art, Judge Rochon stayed the case while the Second Circuit considered whether email service on defendants in China was valid.
Rovio Entertainment Corporation, the defendants, and the court proceedings were affected. The default-judgment motion and court appearances were paused, and Rovio received service and status-reporting deadlines.
What happened
Rovio Entertainment Corporation sued Ace Air Art Inflatable Decorations Store and others, alleging they sold counterfeit products using Rovio’s Angry Birds brand. Rovio later asked for a default judgment.
The court paused the case because a pending Second Circuit appeal could clarify whether serving defendants in China by email was legally sufficient. That issue could affect whether the court has authority over the defendants and whether Rovio’s default-judgment request could proceed.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon stayed the action, ended all open motions, and postponed court appearances. Rovio must serve the order on the defendants and later file a status update after the Second Circuit decides the related appeal.
The detailed version
- Rovio Entertainment Corporation v. Ace Air Art Inflatable Decorations Store · No. 1:22-cv-04139
- Rochon
- Jan. 10, 2023
Background
Rovio Entertainment Corporation brought this action on May 20, 2022, alleging that the defendants sold counterfeit products on Alibaba and/or AliExpress using Rovio’s Angry Birds brand without permission. Rovio moved for default judgment on October 5, 2022. The court had scheduled a hearing concerning that motion for January 17, 2023.
Rovio had obtained an order allowing service by electronic means on individuals or entities located in China. A separate Southern District of New York case, Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-US, involved a similar service issue. In that case, the district court ruled that email service was not permitted under the Hague Convention or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denied default judgment because it lacked authority over the foreign defendants. That decision was pending before the Second Circuit.
Reason for the Stay
The court explained that it may pause a case when a higher court is close to resolving an important legal issue that could affect the case. It considered the interests of Rovio, the defendants, the courts, nonparties, and the public.
The court concluded that the Second Circuit’s decision in the Smart Study appeal could affect Rovio’s default-judgment motion. The appeal could clarify whether email service was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority over the defendants—and could clarify the United States’ treaty obligations concerning service on defendants in China.
Ruling and Case Status
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered that the action be stayed. The Clerk of Court was directed to mark the case as stayed, terminate open motions, and adjourn all court appearances. The order did not decide Rovio’s default-judgment motion or the underlying counterfeit-product allegations.
Rovio was ordered to serve the defendants with the stay order by January 13, 2023, and file proof of service that day. Within seven calendar days after the Second Circuit issued its decision in Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-US, Rovio must file a letter updating the court on the case, including whether the stay should be lifted, whether Rovio intends to continue the case, and what steps should follow.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.