Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran
407 U.S. App. D.C. 133
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Bell sued Iran for Lanham Act trade dress infringement and design patent (dropped) relating to Shahed helicopters resembling Bell's Jet Ranger 206.
- Default judgment entered against Iran in 2011; damages and attorney's fees awarded.
- Iran did not appear; Iran moved under Rule 60(b)(4) to vacate as void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- District court granted Iran's motion, ruling FSIA immunized Iran because no direct US effect shown.
- Bell appealed, arguing Rule 60(b)(4) timeliness, standard for voidness, and that FSIA commercial activity exception applies.
- The court reviews de novo whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists and whether a 60(b)(4) voidness standard applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate is timely. | Bell: timeliness controlled by 60(c)(1) reasonable-time rule. | Iran: no time limit; 60(b)(4) does not require timely filing. | Timeliness not controlling; traditional voidness standard applies. |
| What standard governs voidness for Rule 60(b)(4) when the defendant did not appear. | Bell argues “arguable basis” for jurisdiction suffices. | Iran: requires total lack of jurisdiction or no arguable basis. | Traditional voidness rule applies; lack of appearance does not bar voidness review. |
| Whether the FSIA commercial activity exception applies by showing a direct effect in the U.S. | Bell contends Iran's export/marketing caused direct effects in U.S. | Iran: no direct effect shown; evidence too remote/attenuated. | No direct effect established; FSIA exception inapplicable. |
| Who bears burden to show direct effects under FSIA and whether Bell preserved it. | Bell contends burden is on Iran to show no direct effect. | Iran bears ultimate burden after Bell shows exception may apply. | Bell failed to meet initial burden; district court properly ruled. |
| Whether the district court correctly applied Weltover and related FSIA standards to intellectual-property harms abroad. | Bell argues IP infringement abroad should suffice for direct effect. | FSIA requires direct, immediate effects; reputational/financial harms too remote. | Evidence insufficient; effects not direct under Weltover/Princz. |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (1992) (direct effect requires immediate consequence; not speculative)
- Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (direct effect flows in a straight line; must be immediate)
- Austin v. Smith, 312 F.2d 337 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (60(b)(4) voidness review is independent of time limits)
- Practical Concepts, Inc. v. Republic of Bolivia, 811 F.2d 1543 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (recognizes voidness standard for non-appearing defendant; de novo review possible)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137 (2009) (res judicata limits challenges to jurisdiction on collateral review)