Ningbo Langyan Agel E-Commerce LTD v. Corporations
Ningbo Langyan Agel E-Commerce LTD v. The Corporations, Limited Liability Companies Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
- Vargas
- 1:25-cv-00058
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ningbo Langyan Agel E-Commerce LTD v. The Corporations, Judge Vargas denied email service because the plaintiff had not reasonably checked the defendants’ physical addresses.
The ruling directly affected Ningbo Langyan Agel E-Commerce LTD’s request to serve Defendant No. 3, Anhui Ergocomfy Home Technology Co., Ltd. doing business as Bettahome, and Defendant No. 7, lou di yuan fa ke ji you xian gong si doing business as Realkant, by email.
What happened
Ningbo Langyan Agel E-Commerce LTD sued online marketplace operators, alleging that products they sold infringed its registered design patents. The plaintiff asked to serve two defendants in China, Defendant No. 3, Anhui Ergocomfy Home Technology Co., Ltd. doing business as Bettahome, and Defendant No. 7, lou di yuan fa ke ji you xian gong si doing business as Realkant, by email.
The plaintiff argued that the Hague Convention did not apply because the defendants’ physical addresses were inconsistent and therefore unreliable. The court explained that email service in China is generally prohibited by that agreement, unless the defendant’s address is not known. An address is not known only when the plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to find a physical address and failed. The plaintiff had used discovery and internet sources but had not taken additional steps to verify the addresses.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied the motion for alternative service. She ruled that the plaintiff’s assumption that none of the addresses was valid, without trying measures such as registered mail, an investigator, or additional online research, did not show reasonable diligence. The ruling concerned service on Defendant Nos. 3 and 7, not the underlying patent-infringement claims.
The detailed version
- Ningbo Langyan Agel E-Commerce LTD v. Corporations · No. 1:25-cv-00058
- Vargas
- July 24, 2025
Background
Ningbo Langyan Agel E-Commerce LTD brought a patent-infringement action against entities identified on Schedule A. It alleged that the defendants operated online marketplaces, including on Amazon, that sold products infringing the plaintiff’s registered design patents. The motion addressed only service on Defendant No. 3, Anhui Ergocomfy Home Technology Co., Ltd. doing business as Bettahome, and Defendant No. 7, lou di yuan fa ke ji you xian gong si doing business as Realkant.
The plaintiff sought permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) to serve those two defendants by email. Both defendants appeared to be based in China. The plaintiff argued that the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Extrajudicial Documents did not apply because the physical addresses listed on the defendants’ websites and Amazon storefronts differed from addresses Amazon provided through discovery, making the addresses unreliable.
Legal standard
Rule 4(f) governs service on a defendant in a foreign country. Rule 4(f)(3) permits a court to order another method of service if the method is not prohibited by an international agreement and is reasonably calculated to give the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court stated that parties do not have to try the other methods listed in Rule 4(f) before requesting alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3).
The court explained that both the United States and China are parties to the Hague Convention, which prohibits service by email on defendants in China. The Hague Convention does not apply when the defendant’s address is not known. Under the court’s cited standard, an address is not known when the plaintiff has used reasonable diligence to find a physical address but has been unsuccessful. Reasonable diligence may include discovery, research on the defendant’s website or other internet sources, in-person investigation, or contacting a shipper.
Court’s analysis
The plaintiff had used expedited discovery to obtain addresses that the defendants provided to Amazon, and it had reviewed addresses publicly listed on the defendants’ websites and Amazon pages. The plaintiff also presented evidence questioning the validity of Defendant No. 3’s website address because a screenshot indicated that the location was within a government building complex.
The court nevertheless found that the plaintiff had not made sufficient efforts to determine whether the other addresses were actually associated with the defendants. The plaintiff had not, for example, sent registered mail to the addresses, sent an investigator to the locations, or conducted additional online research to verify them. The court held that simply assuming that all addresses were invalid because they differed did not constitute reasonable diligence. It therefore could not conclude that the defendants’ addresses were unknown.
Disposition
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied the plaintiff’s motion for alternative service on Defendant Nos. 3 and 7 and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 78. The opinion did not decide the underlying patent-infringement claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.