Navigation Product Co. Says $12.7M Feud Must Be Litigated

Emcore LLC has urged a New Jersey federal court to reject a Turkish electronics company’s bid to arbitrate claims seeking at least $12.7 million, arguing the sales representative agreement underlying those claims contains no arbitration clause.

In a brief filed Monday, Emcore opposed Elektro Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS’s motion to compel arbitration, stay the case or dismiss it for lack of personal jurisdiction. Emcore also asked the court to block an ongoing International Chamber of Commerce arbitration from addressing claims under the sales representative agreement.

“The SRA — the contract that governs the claims at issue — contains no arbitration provision, no forum-selection clause, no mediation requirement, and no alternative dispute-resolution mechanism of any kind,” Emcore said.

Emcore said the parties entered into two separate contracts in 2018. One was a sales representative agreement governing Elektro’s commission-based sales work, while the other was a distributorship agreement covering a separate arrangement under which Elektro purchased and resold Emcore products.

While the distributorship agreement requires arbitration of disputes arising out of or related to that contract, the sales representative agreement contains no arbitration provision, Emcore said.

According to Emcore, the agreements also contain separate integration clauses, are governed by different state laws and cover different commercial relationships. Those distinctions show the parties intended the contracts to remain separate and did not intend the distributorship agreement’s arbitration clause to reach sales representative agreement claims, the company argued.

“Sophisticated parties who include an arbitration clause in one agreement and omit it from another cannot later rewrite the second agreement to include arbitration after a dispute arises,” Emcore said.

Emcore sued in New Jersey state court in November 2025, two days after an unsuccessful mediation, seeking a declaration that it properly terminated the sales representative agreement and that Elektro is entitled only to commissions on qualifying sales under the contract.

Elektro initiated an ICC arbitration the following month asserting claims under both agreements and seeking at least $12.7 million in damages. After being served months later, Elektro removed Emcore’s case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, stay the litigation or dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Elektro argued in its motion that the two agreements were simultaneously negotiated and formed a single commercial framework governing the parties’ business in Turkey. It also said their customers, products and transactions overlapped and the sales representative agreement incorporated aspects of the distributorship arrangement.

Emcore disputed that characterization, arguing the court, not the arbitrator, must decide whether an agreement to arbitrate the sales representative claims exists.

The company also said the New Jersey court has specific personal jurisdiction over Elektro because its managing director called Emcore’s Budd Lake headquarters to dispute the termination and later traveled there to discuss the termination, a rejected purchase order and the parties’ ongoing business relationship.

“That meeting was not incidental or unrelated to this litigation — it forms the genesis of this lawsuit,” Emcore said.

Elektro has argued the New Jersey meeting occurred only after Emcore directed its representatives to Budd Lake and that the parties’ relationship was centered in Turkey, California and other locations outside New Jersey.

Emcore said it has consistently objected to the ICC tribunal’s jurisdiction over the sales representative agreement claims. Although the arbitrator denied Emcore’s request to separately address the jurisdictional issue, the procedural order stated that the decision did not reflect a view on the merits of Emcore’s objection, according to the opposition brief.

Emcore asked the court to stay the arbitration as to the sales representative claims, arguing it would suffer irreparable harm if forced to arbitrate disputes it never agreed to submit to arbitration.

Elektro may continue pursuing claims under the distributorship agreement in arbitration, but claims under the sales representative agreement belong in court, Emcore argued.

The company also urged the court not to stay the federal action, saying the Federal Arbitration Act requires a stay only for claims covered by a valid arbitration agreement.

Emcore asked the court to deny Elektro’s motion in full and stay the ICC arbitration as to all claims arising under the sales representative agreement.

Neither side responded to requests for comment Tuesday.

Emcore is represented by Brandon Fierro, Michael C. Klauder, Andrew P. Weiss and Kori L. Pruett of Cole Schotz PC.

To read the full article, click here.