Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 14-3 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 5
`Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 14-3 Filed 01/14/22 Page1of5
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00261-ADA Document 13 Filed 05/29/19 Page 1 of 4Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 14-3 Filed 01/14/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`p
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`414
`
`STC.UNM,
`Plaint iff
`
`v.
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`MANUFACTURING COMPANY
`LIMITED and TSMC NORTH
`AMERICA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL NO. 6:19-CV-00261-ADA
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EFFECT
`ALTERNATIVE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Effect Alternative Service on
`
`Defendant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited. Dkt. Number 10. After
`
`carefully reviewing Plaintiff's Motion, the Court finds that it should be granted for the following
`
`reasons.
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(h) governs service of process on corporations
`
`such as Defendant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited ("TSMC"). FED. R.
`
`Civ. P. 4(h). Pursuant to Rule 4(h)(2), service of a corporation "at a place not within any judicial
`
`district of the United States" is to be conducted "in any manner prescribed" by Rule 4(f) for
`
`serving an individual "except for personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i)." Id. Rule 4(f)(3) provides
`
`that the Court may authorize service on a foreign individual "by other means not prohibited by
`
`international agreement." FED. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Thus, so long as the method of service is
`
`not prohi bited by international agreement the Court has considerable discretion to authorize an
`
`alternative means of service. Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00261-ADA Document 13 Filed 05/29/19 Page 2 of 4Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 14-3 Filed 01/14/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`Cir. 2002) ("As obvious from its plain language, service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be (1) directed
`
`by the court; and (2) not prohibited by international agreement. No other limitations are evident
`
`from the text.").
`
`However, a plaintiff does not have to attempt to effect service under Rule 4(f)( 1) or Rule
`
`4(0(2) prior to requesting the authorization of an alternative method of service pursuant to Rule
`
`4(f)(3). Rio Properties, Inc., 284 F.3d at 1015 ("[Ejxamining the language and structure of Rule
`
`4(f) and the accompanying advisory committee notes, we are left with the inevitable conclusion
`
`that service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a 'last resort' nor 'extraordinary relief.' It is
`
`merely one means among several which enables service of process on an international
`
`defendant."). In the end, any alternative method of service authorized must be "reasonably
`
`calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action
`
`and afford an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust
`
`Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).
`
`B. Alternative Service of Process is Justified for TSMC.
`
`The Court finds that alternative service of process is justified for TSMC for several
`
`reasons. First, the United States does not recognize Taiwan's government as a sovereign state,
`
`which complicates matters regarding Plaintiff serving TSMC with process under "the foreign
`
`country's law." FED. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2). Second, neither the Hague Convention nor any other
`
`international agreement prohibits service on a foreign corporation through its U.S. Counsel, in-
`
`house counsel, or a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary. Furthermore, service pursuant to Hague
`
`Convention procedures is impracticable in this case because Taiwan is not a signatory to the
`
`Hague Convention, or any other treaty related to international service of judicial documents like
`
`summons and complaint. West v. Velo Enters. Co., Ltd., No. 5:13 -CV-00024-OLG, 2013 WL
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00261-ADA Document 13 Filed 05/29/19 Page 3 of 4Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 14-3 Filed 01/14/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`12086781, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2013); Tatung Co. Ltd. v. Hsu, No. SA-CV-131743, 2015
`
`WL 11089492, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2015) (finding that "[t]he United States and Taiwan
`
`have not signed any treaties or agreements regarding service of process from United States
`
`courts."). As a result, many district courts have allowed service upon Taiwanese corporations by
`
`serving their U.S. counsel under Rule 4(0(3). See, e.g, Fourte Int'l Ltd. BVI v. Pin Shine Indus.
`
`Co., Ltd., No. 18-CV-00297-BAS-BGS, 2019 WL 246562, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2019)
`
`(allowing email service on local counsel of Taiwanese company). District courts also have
`
`allowed alternative service to be accomplished via service upon a United States subsidiary or
`
`affiliate of a foreign entity. See, e.g, Nuance Commc 'ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d
`
`1222, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (acknowledging cases allowing service of foreign entities through
`
`domestic subsidiaries and counsel).
`
`Finally, the Court finds that Plaintifr s proposed means of alternative service satisfy due
`
`process because the proposed methods will provide reasonable notice and an opportunity to be
`
`heard. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. WA: 13-C V-369, 2014
`WL 11342502, at *3 (W.D. Tex. July 2, 2014) ("Due process requires that notice be 'reasonably
`
`calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action
`
`and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.") (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at
`
`314). This is made evident from the fact that past courts have allowed plaintiffs to service
`
`Taiwanese companies in a similar manner as proposed by Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Fourte Int'l Ltd.
`BVI, 2019 WL 246562 at *3 (allowing email service on local counsel of Taiwanese company); In
`re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 270 F.R.D. 535, 536-38 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (allowing
`
`service on U.S. counsel of Taiwanese company); Alu, Inc. v. Kupo Co., No. 6:06-CV-327-ORL-
`28DAB, 2007 WL 177836, at *34 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2007) (allowing email service on a
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00261-ADA Document 13 Filed 05/29/19 Page 4 of 4Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 14-3 Filed 01/14/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`Taiwanese corporation). Because of the foregoing, the Court finds that alternative service of
`
`process is justified for TSMC.
`
`C. Conclusion
`
`Because of the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Effect
`
`Alternative Service on Defendant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
`
`should be and hereby is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff may effect service
`
`on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited using the following three means in
`
`combination:
`
`1. Sending the complaint and other required materials to TSMC's counsel, Mr. Dominic
`
`Massa, at WilmerHale, by email and FedEx, using the same email and postal address
`
`listed
`
`in Mr. Massa's March
`
`1,
`
`2019
`
`email
`
`signature
`
`block:
`
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com and 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109;
`
`2. Sending the complaint and other required materials to TMSC's in-house counsel, Mr.
`
`Matt Chen by email using the same email address listed in Mr. Chen's January 18, 2019
`
`email signature block: jkchene@tsmc.com; and
`
`3. Sending the complaint and other required materials to TSMC's wholly-owned U.S.
`
`subsidiary, TSMC North America, by courier using the same postal address listed in
`
`TSMC North America's October 22, 2018 Statement of Information for the California
`
`Secretary of State: 2851 Junction Avenue, San Jose, CA 95134.
`
`SIGNED this 29th day of May 2019.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`ru
`
`