$25-1$: Doing Business Internationally. Macrotech, Inc., develops an innovative computer chip and obtains a patent on it$.$ The firm markets the chip under the trademarked brand name $$Flash$.$ Macrotech wants to sell the chip to Nitron, Ltd$.,$ in Pacifica, a foreign country. Macrotech is concerned, how$-$ever, that after an initial purchase Nitron will duplicate the chip, pirate it$,$ and sell the pirated version to computer manufacturers in Pacifica. To avoid this possibility, Macrotech could establish its own manufacturing facility in Pacifica, but it does not want to do this. How can Macrotech, without establishing a manufacturing facility in Pacifica, protect Flash from being pirated by Nitron? $($See Doing Business Internationally.$)$

$253.$ Sovereign Immunity. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., designs, makes, and sells helicopters with distinctive and famous trade dress that identifies them as Bell aircraft. Bell also owns the helicopters$$ design patents. Bell$$s Model $206$ Series includes the Jet Ranger. Thirty$-$six years after Bell developed the Jet Ranger, the Islamic Republic of Iran began to make and sell counterfeit Model $206$ Series helicopters and parts. Iran$$s counterfeit versions$$the Shahed $278$ and the Shahed $285$used Bell$$s trade dress. The Shahed aircraft was promoted at an international air show in Iran to aircraft customers. Bell filed a suit in a U$.$S$.$ district court against Iran, alleging violations of trademark and patent laws. Is Iran$$a foreign nation$$exempt in these circumstances from the jurisdiction of U$.$S$.$ courts? Explain. $[$Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v$.$ Islamic Republic of Iran, $734$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $1175.$

$256.$ The Principle of Comity. Holocaust survivors and the heirs of Holocaust victims filed a suit in a federal district court in the United States against the Hungarian national railway, the Hungarian national bank, and several private Hungarian banks. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had participated in expropriating the property of Hungarian Jews who were vic$-$tims of the Holocaust. The claims arose from events in Hungary seventy years ago. The plaintiffs had not exhausted remedies available through Hungarian courts. Indeed, they had not even attempted to seek remedies in Hungarian courts, and they did not provide a legally compelling reason for their failure to do so$.$ The defendants asked the court to dismiss the suit. Does the principle of comity support the defendants$$ request? Explain. Fischer v$.$ Magyar $$llamvasutak Zrt$.$