Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 21, 2020

Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited v. SIMO Holdings Inc.

Judge
Jed Rakoff
Docket
1:20-cv-03399
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hong Kong uCloudlink v. SIMO Holdings, Judge Rakoff allowed electronic service of the complaint on SIMO’s domestic lawyer under Rule 4(f)(3).

Who this affects

Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited, Ucloudlink (America), Ltd., and SIMO Holdings Inc.; the order authorized the plaintiffs to serve SIMO electronically through its domestic counsel.

What happened

Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited and Ucloudlink (America), Ltd. sued SIMO Holdings Inc. in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs asked to serve SIMO through an alternative method.

During a May 21, 2020 telephone conference, the plaintiffs requested permission to send the complaint electronically to SIMO’s counsel in another case before the court involving the same parties and patent. They relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which permits certain court-approved alternative methods of service.

The court found that serving SIMO through its domestic counsel was appropriate and granted the plaintiffs’ motion. Judge Jed Rakoff issued the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited v. SIMO Holdings Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03399
Judge
Jed Rakoff
Date
May 21, 2020

Background

Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited and Ucloudlink (America), Ltd. sued SIMO Holdings Inc. The plaintiffs, collectively called “uCloudlink” in the order, orally moved for permission to use alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3).

Requested Service Method

uCloudlink asked to serve the complaint electronically on SIMO’s counsel of record in a separate, co-pending case before the same court involving the same parties and patent. The order refers to this as service on SIMO’s domestic counsel.

Court’s Ruling

The court determined that service on SIMO’s domestic counsel was appropriate under Rule 4(f)(3). It therefore granted the plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service. Judge Jed Rakoff issued the order during or following the May 21, 2020 telephonic conference.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.