UiPath, Inc. v. Shanghai Yunkuo Information Technology Co., Ltd

Background

UiPath, Inc. filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which permits a court to order alternative service on a person outside the United States when the method is not prohibited by an international agreement. UiPath sought to serve its petition to confirm an arbitration award by email and international courier on Shanghai Yunkuo Information Technology Co., Ltd., doing business as ENCOO Tech., and on the company’s former foreign and U.S. counsel.

UiPath reported that email service on Shanghai Yunkuo received no response, courier packages sent to the company’s physical addresses were not delivered, and both former counsel rejected service because they had withdrawn and were not authorized to accept it. Shanghai Yunkuo is a foreign corporation based in China, and its former foreign counsel is also located in China.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 4(h) requires service on a corporation outside the United States using one of the methods permitted by Rule 4(f), except personal delivery. Because China and the United States are parties to the Hague Service Convention, the convention governs service where it applies.

The court concluded that China’s objection to service through postal channels under Article 10(a) also covers email and international courier service. The court reasoned that international courier service closely resembles postal service and that, under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the convention, silence about a particular method does not necessarily mean that method is permitted. The court rejected UiPath’s argument that the parties’ arbitration agreement authorized email service because the agreement addressed jurisdiction and venue, not the manner of service. Prior acceptance of email communications during the arbitration was also insufficient without an explicit agreement to accept service by email in this case.

The Hague Convention applied to Shanghai Yunkuo and its former foreign counsel because UiPath identified addresses for them in China. The convention did not automatically apply to service within the United States, including service on foreign counsel located in the United States. But UiPath did not establish that its former U.S. counsel, Mr. Ware, was located in the United States or could be served through the firm’s San Francisco office. The materials cited by UiPath included an email address with a “cn” designation and a law-firm website stating that Mr. Ware was based in Shanghai.

Disposition

Judge Schofield denied UiPath’s motion by order to show cause for alternative service without prejudice to renewal. The court directed UiPath, by January 12, 2024, either to file a renewed motion supported by evidence that Mr. Ware could be personally served in the United States or to file a letter stating that it had taken steps to serve Shanghai Yunkuo under the Hague Convention and describing those steps.