Future Motion, Inc. v. Doe
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-03022
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Future Motion v. John Doe, Magistrate Judge Corley granted Future Motion’s motion to serve the unknown defendant by email.
Future Motion, Inc. received permission to serve John Doe by email. John Doe, an unknown defendant doing business as Floatwheel, was the person to be served.
What happened
Future Motion, Inc. v. John Doe concerns Future Motion’s patent-infringement claims against an unknown person doing business as Floatwheel. Future Motion alleged that the person sold do-it-yourself self-balancing skateboard kits and instructional videos through websites and a YouTube channel.
Future Motion asked to serve the summons and complaint by email because it could not identify the defendant or find a physical address. The court found that the defendant’s address was unknown and that emails to two addresses were reasonably likely to provide actual notice.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted Future Motion’s motion to serve the defendant by alternative means under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). The order disposed of Docket No. 16.
The detailed version
- Future Motion, Inc. v. Doe · No. 4:21-cv-03022
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 20, 2021
Background
Future Motion sells self-balancing, electronically motorized skateboards under the Onewheel product line and owns related patents. It alleged that an unknown defendant, identified as John Doe and doing business as Floatwheel, sold do-it-yourself kits through floatwheel.com to construct skateboards that infringed those patents. Future Motion also alleged that the defendant published instructional videos on a Floatwheel YouTube channel that encouraged purchasers to assemble the kits.
Future Motion investigated the person behind the website and YouTube channel but could not determine the defendant’s true identity or physical address. The website information indicated that its owner was located in Guangxi, China, but otherwise masked the owner’s identity. Future Motion communicated through the email address 425136673@qq.com, received confirmation that a cease-and-desist letter was received, and later identified diyonewheel@gmail.com as another contact address on the defendant’s website. Future Motion also described searches and other efforts to locate the defendant’s address.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service of process on an individual in a foreign country. Rule 4(f)(3) permits a court to authorize an alternative method of service, including email, when the method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The method must also be reasonably calculated to inform the defendant about the lawsuit and give the defendant an opportunity to object.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the United States and China are parties to the Hague Service Convention but that the Convention does not apply when the defendant’s address is unknown. The court concluded that Future Motion had sufficiently shown that the defendant’s address was unknown based on its searches, its efforts using a Chinese-speaking partner, and its request for a physical address by email.
The court also found that email service was reasonably calculated to provide actual notice. The recipient of the email sent to 425136673@qq.com confirmed receiving it, and the defendant later stopped selling the products, which the court said suggested that the demand letter had been received and understood. The court concluded that service by email to 425136673@qq.com, supplemented by service to diyonewheel@gmail.com, would provide notice and an opportunity to present objections.
Disposition
The court granted Future Motion’s motion to serve John Doe by alternative means under Rule 4(f)(3). The order disposed of Docket No. 16. The opinion is signed by Jacqueline Scott Corley, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.