SiVault Systems, Inc. v. WonderNet, Ltd.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2005 WL 681457 (2005)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
WonderNet Ltd. (defendant) was an Israeli technology company. According to SiVault Systems, Inc. (SiVault) (plaintiff), in 2003, WonderNet represented that it held intellectual-property rights (IPRs) in certain security-biometrics technology in specified territories. Under a 2003 agreement, SiVault delivered 2.5 million shares of SiVault’s stock, plus cash, to WonderNet, in exchange for a license to use WonderNet’s technology. Subsequently, SiVault discovered that WonderNet had misrepresented the extent of its IPRs, which infringed existing patents in certain territories. In January 2005, SiVault initiated arbitration against WonderNet in New York pursuant to the parties’ agreement. SiVault sought rescission and return of money and stock exceeding $350,000 in value. For its part, WonderNet showed that the SiVault stock served as consideration for rights granted in a 2002 agreement, that SiVault had extensive opportunities to investigate WonderNet’s IPRs, and that WonderNet had potential claims against SiVault for breaching the 2003 agreement and another agreement between the parties. WonderNet had not yet filed counterclaims in arbitration. Soon after filing its demand for arbitration, SiVault petitioned the district court in New York for an order of attachment as to the SiVault shares of stock held by WonderNet. SiVault supported its petition with affidavits and evidence of its claims, including evidence of WonderNet’s liabilities and financial condition.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sweet, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.