Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 1 of 3
`
`United States District Court
`for the
`Southern District of Florida
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HMD America, Inc., and others,
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process
`This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for
`Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants Pursuant to
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) (ECF No. 61) seeking this Court’s
`authorization to effectuate service of process by email. For the reasons stated
`herein, the Court grants the motion. (ECF No. 61.)
`
`Civil Action No. 22-22706-Civ-Scola
`
`
`
`
`1. Background
`On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC (“Bell
`Northern”), filed the instant civil action for patent infringement, alleging that
`the Defendants are engaging in “unauthorized and licensed use of” certain of
`Bell Northern’s patents. (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 43.)
`In its Motion, the Plaintiff requests an order authorizing service of
`process on one Defendant, Shenzhen Chino-E Communication Co. Ltd.
`(“Chino-E”) by email service. (Mot. at 1.) The Plaintiff has attempted multiple
`methods of contacting and serving Defendant Chino-E, including emailing a
`waiver of service packet to the email addresses available on Chino-E’s website,
`mailing a waiver of service packet to Chino-E’s South Korean and Chinese
`mailing addresses via FedEx, and calling Chino-E’s business phone number
`listed on its website. (Mot. at 1-3; Ex. A.) Chino-E has not responded to any of
`these attempted communications. (Id.) The Plaintiff has served or obtained
`waivers of service from the rest of the Defendants, none of whom have objected
`to the relief requested here. (Id. at 9.)
`
`2. Analysis
`Rule 4(f)(3) permits service “by other means not prohibited by
`international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Service
`pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) is neither “a last resort nor extraordinary relief.” See
`Rio Props. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002). All that is
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 2 of 3
`
`required is that the proposed service is not prohibited by international
`agreement and such service comports with Constitutional due process,
`meaning that it is “reasonably calculated” to provide the defendants notice and
`an opportunity to defend. See Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1016; see also Chanel,
`Inc. v. Zhixian, No. 10-cv-60585, 2010 WL 1740695, at *2–3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29,
`2010) (Cohn, J.).
`The Hague Convention does not expressly preclude service by email. See
`Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Individuals, P’ships and Uninc. Ass’ns., No. 20-61122-
`CIV, 2020 WL 4501765, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2020) (Altonaga, C.J.) And
`where, as here for certain of the Defendants, the address of the person to be
`served is not known, alternative service is not prohibited by international
`agreement. See Mycoskie, LLC v. 1688best, No. 18-cv-60925, 2018 WL
`4775643, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2018) (Moore, J.) (“Article 1 of the Hague
`Service Convention states that ‘[t]his Convention shall not apply where the
`address of the person to be served with the document is not known.’”). Service
`of process by email has been upheld in circumstances similar to those here.
`See, e.g., Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1018 (“When faced with an international e-
`business scofflaw, playing hide-and-seek with the federal court, email may be
`the only means of effecting service of process.”); see also Louis Vuitton, 2020
`WL 4501765, at *2 (holding that service by email and website posting is
`permitted where the defendants “conduct[] their businesses over the Internet,”
`“use[] email regularly in their businesses,” and the plaintiff shows that email is
`“likely to reach defendants”).
`Here, Defendant Chino-E has at least one known and valid form of
`electronic contact, lists those forms of electronic contact on its website, and the
`Plaintiff has previously attempted to communicate with the Defendant at those
`email addresses. (Mot. at Ex. A.)
`Service by email is therefore reasonably calculated, under all
`circumstances, to apprise the Defendant of the pending action and afford it an
`opportunity to respond. Moreover, these are the most likely means of
`communication to reach the Defendant, who operates via the Internet and
`relies on electronic communications for the operation of its businesses. See
`Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Dorapang Franchise Store, No. 18-cv-61590, 2018 WL
`4828430, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2018) (Ungaro, J.).
`For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 61.)
`The Plaintiff is permitted to serve the Summonses, Complaint, and all other
`filings and discovery in this matter upon Defendant Chino-E by sending emails
`to the Defendant via the email accounts identified in Section V of the motion.
`The Plaintiffs shall file an email delivery confirmation, under Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 4(l)(2)(B), as proof of service for Defendant Chino-E.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 3 of 3
`
`Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on October 21, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________
`Robert N. Scola, Jr.
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`