Optima Direct, LLC v. Yageo America Corporation
- Donna Ryu
- 4:21-cv-02823
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Optima Direct v. Yageo, Judge Ryu denied without prejudice alternate service because Optima had not shown its proposed methods would provide notice or reflected reasonable diligence.
Optima Direct, LLC’s efforts to serve Yageo America Corporation were affected. Optima may file a new motion supported by the evidence required by the order.
What happened
In Optima Direct, LLC v. Yageo America Corporation, Optima asked to serve its patent-infringement complaint by email to Ben Wang and/or by hand delivery to the California Secretary of State. Optima had tried three times to serve Yageo at a San Jose address and twice emailed Wang about waiving service.
The court found that Optima had not shown that emailing Wang would likely give Yageo actual notice because it did not explain Wang’s connection to Yageo, how it found the email address, or whether anyone received the emails. The court also found that Optima had not tried enough of the available service methods to show that Yageo or its service agent could not be served with reasonable diligence.
Judge Donna M. Ryu denied Optima’s motion for alternate service without prejudice. The court said Optima could file a new motion supported by an affidavit and properly authenticated evidence showing that the required service methods were not reasonably possible.
The detailed version
- Optima Direct, LLC v. Yageo America Corporation · No. 4:21-cv-02823
- Donna Ryu
- Dec. 21, 2021
Background
Optima alleged that it held rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,396,460, concerning chip antennas used in wireless communication networks and equipment. It alleged that Yageo America Corporation sold, distributed, and advertised products that infringed the patent. The motion at issue concerned service of the complaint, not whether the patent was infringed.
Optima asked for permission to use alternative service methods: emailing the summons and complaint to an individual named Ben Wang and/or hand-delivering the papers to the California Secretary of State. Optima said it had tried three times to serve Yageo at a San Jose business address listed in Yageo’s filing with the California Secretary of State. The process server reported no answer at the address on each attempt. Optima also said its counsel twice emailed Wang to request a waiver of service.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 governs service of a summons and complaint. A corporation may generally be served through an officer, managing or general agent, or another authorized agent. Service may also follow the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made.
California law permits several service methods, including personal delivery, substitute service, mail, and publication. It also allows a court to authorize another method that is reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual notice. California law permits service on the Secretary of State when the corporation’s service agent cannot be found with reasonable diligence, but the requesting party must support that showing with an affidavit.
Court’s analysis
The court denied email service because Optima had not shown that emailing Wang was reasonably calculated to notify Yageo of the lawsuit. Optima did not explain who Wang was, what connection he had to Yageo, or how it identified his email address. It also provided no evidence that Yageo, one of its officers, or its service agent received the emails and failed to respond. Counsel did not attest that he had previously communicated successfully with Yageo through that address.
The court also denied the request to serve the Secretary of State. Optima’s three unsuccessful attempts showed that personal service and substitute service at the San Jose address had not worked. But Optima had not tried service by mail, searched for other addresses for Yageo’s service agent, Chih-Hao Chen, or shown that it had searched for and tried to locate Yageo’s other officers. The court therefore found that Optima had not established the required reasonable diligence under California law.
Disposition
Judge Donna M. Ryu denied Optima’s motion for alternate service without prejudice. The order stated that Optima could file a new motion, but that any new motion would need an affidavit and properly authenticated exhibits showing that service through the relevant prerequisite methods was not possible with reasonable diligence.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.