Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics v. Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data
49 F. Supp. 3d 92
D.D.C.2014Background
- Petitioner Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (Swiss non‑profit) and respondent GISAID (D.C. non‑profit) executed a February 29, 2008 agreement governed by Swiss law with an arbitration clause specifying Geneva Chambers of Commerce and English proceedings.
- Swiss Institute developed and maintained the EpiFlu database; GISAID was to promote it; GISAID paid only CHF 500 and otherwise defaulted on payment obligations.
- Petitioner terminated the agreement in June 2009, redirected database access, and informed users. GISAID then initiated arbitration in Geneva.
- The Geneva arbitrator issued a Final Award ordering GISAID to pay petitioner CHF/€ amounts which, when converted, total $999,450.32 and allocated 75% of petitioner’s legal costs to GISAID.
- Petitioner filed in D.D.C. to confirm the foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention and the FAA; GISAID was served but did not appear, and the Clerk entered default.
- The District Court granted default judgment: confirmed the Award for $999,450.32, awarded 75% of attorney’s fees and costs ($26,784.69), and ordered post‑judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Issues
| Issue | Swiss Institute's Argument | GISAID's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Final Award should be confirmed under the New York Convention / FAA | The Award meets Convention requirements; no Convention grounds to refuse enforcement so court must confirm | No opposition submitted; no asserted Convention defenses | Confirmed; court found none of Article V grounds applied and ordered payment of $999,450.32 |
| Whether petitioner may recover attorney’s fees incurred in confirmation proceedings | Petitioner seeks 75% of post‑award fees and costs (consistent with Award allocation) and cites courts awarding fees where respondent unjustifiably refuses to comply | No opposition submitted | Awarded $26,784.69 (75% of fees/costs); court found award clause and reasonableness support fee recovery under courts’ inherent authority and precedent |
| Whether post‑judgment interest is recoverable on confirmed foreign arbitral award | Petitioner requests post‑judgment interest as allowed by law | No opposition submitted | Awarded post‑judgment interest at the § 1961 rate; court adopted consensus that confirmed arbitration judgments are subject to § 1961 |
Key Cases Cited
- Belize Soc. Dev., Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, 668 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir.) (federal policy strongly favors arbitration enforcement)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler‑Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (Supreme Court) (emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitration)
- TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir.) (courts must enforce Convention awards absent Article V defenses)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (Supreme Court) (courts possess inherent authority to award attorneys’ fees for bad‑faith or frivolous conduct)
- Tricon Energy Ltd. v. Vinmar Int’l, Ltd., 718 F.3d 448 (5th Cir.) (judgments confirming arbitration awards are subject to post‑judgment interest under § 1961)