Huzhou Xinju Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Semisilicon Technology Corp.
- 5:26-cv-08217
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Huzhou Xinju v. Semisilicon: the court, with the judge not clearly identified, authorized email service on the defendant.
The plaintiff may serve the defendant by email at the two addresses identified in the order. The plaintiff must file proof of service and a magistrate-judge jurisdiction form by August 14, 2026; the defendant will be asked to file the jurisdiction form after being served.
What happened
In Huzhou Xinju Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Semisilicon Technology Corp., the plaintiff asked to serve the defendant, described as a Taiwanese citizen, by email.
The court found that no international agreement between Taiwan and the United States barred email service and that the proposed email addresses were reasonably likely to notify the defendant. The plaintiff had previously communicated with the defendant’s counsel at those addresses.
The judge’s name is not clearly identified in the available text. The court granted the motion for alternative service by email, authorized service at jackyam@semitech.com.tw and jackyp@semitech.com.tw, and required the plaintiff to file proof of service and a magistrate-judge jurisdiction form by August 14, 2026.
The detailed version
- Huzhou Xinju Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Semisilicon Technology Corp. · No. 5:26-cv-08217
- Aug. 7, 2026
Background
Huzhou Xinju Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. moved for permission to serve Semisilicon Technology Corp., described in the order as a Taiwanese citizen, by email. The proposed email addresses were jackyam@semitech.com.tw and jackyp@semitech.com.tw. The plaintiff had previously communicated with the defendant’s counsel using those addresses in a 2025 action and had continued communicating with counsel about the current dispute.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service on an individual outside the United States, and Rule 4(h)(2) applies Rule 4(f) to service on a corporation outside the United States. Under Rule 4(f)(3), a court may order a method of service that is not prohibited by an international agreement. The method must also be reasonably calculated to notify the interested party about the case and give that party an opportunity to object.
Reasoning
The court stated that there were no treaties or agreements between Taiwan and the United States regarding service of process. It also found that email service was reasonably calculated to notify Semisilicon because the plaintiff had a valid means of contacting the defendant’s counsel through the proposed addresses. The court therefore concluded that email service was permitted under Rule 4(f)(3).
Ruling and Required Filings
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for alternative service by email. It authorized service on Semisilicon at the two specified email addresses. The plaintiff must file proof of service by August 14, 2026. The court also asked the plaintiff, and stated that it would ask the defendant after service, to file a form consenting to or declining magistrate-judge jurisdiction by that date. The judge’s name is not clearly readable in the provided opinion text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.