Astral IP Enterprise LTD v. Apero Technologies Group
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-02853
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Astral IP Enterprise v. Apero Technologies, Judge Corley denied without prejudice Astral’s request to serve Apero by email.
Astral’s requested method of serving Apero was rejected for now; the motion was denied without prejudice, and the copyright claims were not decided.
What happened
Astral IP Enterprise LTD sued Apero Technologies Group for allegedly copying parts of Astral’s mobile application. Astral asked to serve Apero through two email addresses instead of using ordinary service methods.
The court said email service may be allowed in an international case, but Astral had to show that email was reasonably likely to notify Apero and that alternative service was necessary. Astral had not tried contacting either email address or the physical address listed in Apero’s counter-notice, and its speculation that the physical address was false was unsupported.
The court denied without prejudice the motion for alternative service, meaning Astral may renew the request. Judge Jacquelyn Corley issued the order.
The detailed version
- Astral IP Enterprise LTD v. Apero Technologies Group · No. 3:23-cv-02853
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 23, 2023
Background
Astral IP Enterprise LTD brought a copyright-infringement action against Apero Technologies Group. Astral alleged that Apero’s mobile application, “Auto Clicker: Automatic Tapper,” copied original text, user-interface design, and page layout from Astral’s application, “Auto Tapper: Auto Clicker,” or was otherwise sufficiently similar to infringe Astral’s copyright.
After Astral submitted a copyright takedown notice through Google Play, Apero submitted a counter-notice identifying its business name, a physical address in Ha Noi, Viet Nam, and an email address. Astral asked for permission to serve Apero through that email address and another email address listed in the Google Play store.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) allows a court to order service on a person in a foreign country by means that are not prohibited by an international agreement. The court explained that the Hague Service Convention applies because the United States and Vietnam are parties to it. Although the Convention does not prohibit service by email, courts generally require a showing that email service is necessary and that it is reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual notice and an opportunity to respond.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Astral had made neither showing. Astral offered no evidence that it had tried communicating with Apero at either proposed email address, so the record did not show that those addresses were reasonably likely to provide notice of the lawsuit. Astral also had not tried contacting Apero at the physical address listed in the counter-notice. Instead, Astral relied on a Google search result suggesting that the address belonged to a multi-story building.
The court rejected Astral’s speculation, based on counsel’s experience, that foreign online application developers often provide false or incomplete physical addresses and primarily communicate electronically. Astral had provided no evidence that the physical address in this case was false or that either email address was valid.
Disposition
The court concluded that Astral’s request did not satisfy Rule 4(f) or constitutional due-process requirements. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley denied without prejudice Astral’s motion to serve Apero by alternative means. The order disposed of Docket No. 12.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.