Celgard v. Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. Research Institute
Celgard, LLC v. Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. (US) Research Institute
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-05784
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Celgard v. Shenzhen Senior, Judge Demarchi granted in part and denied in part Celgard’s motion for substituted service.
Celgard, LLC; Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. (US) (Senior-US); and Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. (Senior-China), particularly the service of process and response deadline for Senior-China.
What happened
Celgard, LLC sued Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. and another defendant in a patent-infringement case. Celgard asked to serve the Chinese defendant through its U.S. lawyers instead of using the Hague Convention, and also asked the court to approve an earlier email as valid service.
The court treated the motion as no longer necessary for the U.S. defendant because that defendant had been served. The Chinese defendant already knew about the lawsuit and was participating through Latham & Watkins, but Celgard had not shown enough reason to approve the earlier email or to justify alternate service solely because it would be faster or less costly.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi refused to approve the earlier email retroactively but authorized service on the Chinese defendant through email and Federal Express to Latham & Watkins by November 4, 2019; the defendant could respond by December 16, 2019.
The detailed version
- Celgard v. Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. Research Institute · No. 4:19-cv-05784
- Jon Tigar
- Oct. 28, 2019
Background
Celgard, LLC filed a patent-infringement action against Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. (Senior-China) and Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. (US) (Senior-US). Celgard moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which allows a court to authorize service on a defendant outside the United States by means not prohibited by an international agreement.
Celgard asked the court to authorize service on the defendants through their U.S. counsel, Latham & Watkins. It also asked the court to declare that service had already been completed when Celgard emailed the complaint and summons to Ropes & Gray on September 17, 2019. Ropes & Gray later stated that it did not represent either defendant and was not authorized to accept service.
Ruling
The court explained that Rule 4(f)(3) does not require a plaintiff to try service under the Hague Convention first. The alternative method must be directed by the court, not prohibited by an international agreement, and consistent with due process, meaning reasonably calculated to give the defendant notice of the case.
The court declined to authorize the September 17 email retroactively because Celgard sent it before obtaining court approval. The court nevertheless authorized Celgard to serve Senior-China by email and Federal Express through Latham & Watkins. Senior-China already had actual notice of the action and was participating through that firm, so the authorized methods satisfied due process. Celgard had to complete that service by November 4, 2019, and Senior-China was given until December 16, 2019, to respond.
The court stated that the motion was moot as to Senior-US because Celgard had filed proof of service for that defendant and the parties had agreed to an extension of time for its response. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part Celgard’s motion for substituted service.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.