Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 17
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`NO. 6:22-cv-01162-ADA
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EFFECT ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Service of a Foreign Entity ................................................................................ 8
`
`Proper Service under Taiwanese Law ................................................................ 9
`
`IV. ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................ 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`ParkerVision has not attempted to serve Realtek through proper means. ......... 9
`
`ParkerVision’s claims that proper service under Taiwanese law would be
`
`inconvenient does not justify alternative service. ............................................ 11
`
`3.
`
`Taiwan’s status under the Hague Convention is irrelevant and does not justify
`
`using any means of service .............................................................................. 13
`
`4.
`
`ParkerVision’s proposal to serve Realtek through K&L Gates or Orrick does
`
`not satisfy due process ..................................................................................... 14
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 3 of 17
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aprese Sys. Texas, LLC v. Audi AG,
`No. 6:21-CV-01014-ADA, 2022 WL 891951 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2022) ................ passim
`
`Bandspeed, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation,
`No. 1-20-cv-00765 (W.D. Tex.) ........................................................................................ 11
`
`Blue Spike, LLC v. ASUS Computer Int’l,
`No. 6:15-cv-1384-RWS-KNM, 2018 WL 3301705 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20,
`2018) ............................................................................................................................ 10, 11
`
`Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Hitachi Kokusai Elec. Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00423-ADA, 2021 WL 4441977 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 27, 2021) ........................ 9
`
`Corkcicle, LLC v. YFS Kitchen and Beauty,
`No. 6:21-cv-00385-ADA, 2022 WL 3581183 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2022) ................ 11, 13
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Beklin Int’l, Inc.,
`782 F.Supp.2d 868 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Kortek Industries Pty Ltd. v. Chengdu Meross Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 6:22-CV-00490, 2022 WL 4227268 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2022) .............................. 12
`
`Longhorn HD LLC. v. Acer Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00221 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................................... 11
`
`M-Red Inc. v. Acer Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00143 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................................... 11
`
`MDJ Industries, LC v. Kytsa Enter., Co. Ltd.,
`No. C20-0069-JCC, 2021 WL 409961 .............................................................................. 10
`
`Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. Meraki Integrated Circuit (Shenzhen) Tech., Ltd.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00876-ADA, 2021 WL 4974040 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2021) ........................ 9
`
`In re OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2021-165, 2021 WL 4130643 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2021) .................................... passim
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00870-ADA ......................................................................................... 5, 6, 14
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00520 ............................................................................................................. 5
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co. Ltd. et al.,
`No 6:20-CV-00945 .................................................................................................... 5, 6, 14
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 4 of 17
`
`In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.,
`270 F.R.D. 535 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................................................................... 13
`
`Trs. of Purdue Univ. v. STMicroelectronics N.V.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00727-ADA, 2021 WL 5393711 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2021) ................... 5, 9
`
`Zanoprima Lifesciences, Ltd. v. Hangsen Int’l Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 6:22-CV-00268-ADA, 2022 WL 1229290 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2022) ....................... 12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1)-(3) ................................................................................................. passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2)................................................................................................................ 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) .......................................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 ....................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 5 of 17
`
`Defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (“Defendant” or “Realtek”), specially
`
`appearing herein for this limited purpose,1 files this Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
`
`to Effect Alternative Service (the “Motion”) (Dkt. 10). Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“Plaintiff”
`
`or “ParkerVision”) has made no effort to properly serve Realtek and is not entitled to alternative
`
`service. In accordance with this Court’s prior rulings, including Aprese and Purdue, Plaintiff’s
`
`Motion should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The record in this case and its related cases confirms that ParkerVision only filed the
`
`instant action after failing to timely seek third party discovery from Realtek in three related
`
`cases filed years ago. Now, with this Motion, ParkerVision again seeks to ignore basic
`
`requirements of this Court and of due process with a sham notice of service. ParkerVision
`
`should be held to the requirements of this Court and the Constitution, and its Motion should be
`
`denied accordingly.
`
`ParkerVision filed three other complaints with this Court involving components
`
`allegedly supplied by Realtek to the Defendants in those cases: ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense
`
`Co., Ltd. et al., 6:20-CV-00870-ADA (filed on September 24, 2020), ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL
`
`Industries Holdings Co. Ltd. et al., 6:20-CV-00945 (filed on October 12, 2020), ParkerVision,
`
`Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 6:21-CV-00520 (filed on May 22, 2021). In each, ParkerVision
`
`alleges that Hisense, TCL, and LG televisions, respectively, incorporate a Realtek RTL8812BU
`
`chip that purportedly infringes its patents—the same allegations that appear in ParkerVision’s
`
`
`1 By filing this Opposition, Realtek does not concede jurisdiction over it nor does it waive
`service. Nothing in this Response should be interpreted as a general appearance or waiver or
`relinquishment of Realtek’s rights to assert defenses or objections including, without
`limitation, the defenses of: (1) lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) improper venue and/or forum
`non conveniens; (3) insufficient process; (4) insufficient service of process; (5) failure to state
`a claim upon which relief can be granted; (6) failure to join a party under Rule 19; (7) improper
`joinder of claims and/or parties; and (8) any other procedural or substantive defense available
`under state or federal law.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 6 of 17
`
`complaint against Realtek. Consequently, ParkerVision has known for years that it would need
`
`discovery from Realtek. Yet ParkerVision waited until the eve of the fact discovery deadline
`
`to seek Letters Rogatory in each one of those cases—less than a month in Hisense, two months
`
`in TCL, and four months in LG. Unable to comply with the Court’s scheduling orders,
`
`ParkerVision filed its complaint against Realtek and concurrently sought a stay of those related
`
`actions.2 ParkerVision thereby attempts to circumvent the consequences of its dilatory actions
`
`in those related cases by instead seeking the necessary discovery in the instant case.
`
`Now, ParkerVision also seeks to bypass this Court’s efforts to accommodate the service
`
`rules of a foreign jurisdiction by seeking alternative service without the requisite “showing that
`
`the plaintiff has reasonably attempted to effectuate service on the defendant by conventional
`
`means” as required by the Federal Circuit and the rulings of this Court. In re OnePlus Tech.
`
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 2021-165, 2021 WL 4130643, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2021);
`
`Aprese Sys. Texas, LLC v. Audi AG, No. 6:21-CV-01014-ADA, 2022 WL 891951, at *2 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Mar. 25, 2022). The Court should not permit such an abuse. Inconvenience to
`
`ParkerVision is not a basis to sidestep the laws of the United States and Taiwan where no
`
`attempt at proper service has been made. Accordingly, Realtek respectfully requests the Court
`
`deny ParkerVision’s motion for leave to effectuate alternative service.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On November 10, 2022, ParkerVision filed the complaint in this action. Dkt. 1. On
`
`December 13, 2022, contrary to proper service under Taiwanese law, ParkerVision sent a letter
`
`to the Clerk of the Court requesting FedEx delivery of the complaint, summons, and civil
`
`coversheet to Realtek. Dkt. 7. On December 28, 2022, ParkerVision filed an Acknowledgment
`
`of Service that included an alleged proof of delivery from FedEx. Dkt. 9. But this “proof of
`
`
`2 The Hisense case settled in November 2022. In January 2023, the Court stayed the TCL case
`pending resolution of this case and the parties in the LG case moved to stay on a similar basis.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 7 of 17
`
`delivery” failed to include critical information readily available through the FedEx website that
`
`FedEx, in fact, returned the package to the sender. Specifically, the document did not include
`
`information confirming that Realtek never accepted the unknown package—instead, the
`
`package was “At [a] local FedEx facility” hours after it was allegedly “Delivered.”
`
`Under a longstanding health and safety policy reinforced during the COVID pandemic,
`
`Realtek does not accept packages from unknown senders. Consistent with that policy, the
`
`FedEx tracking of package 770748443860 indicates that FedEx made several other attempts to
`
`deliver the package in subsequent days.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 8 of 17
`
`The package was unidentified and of unknown origin and Realtek never accepted the package.
`
`FedEx ultimately returned the package (as return package 607758656781) to the sender on
`
`December 26, 2022. FedEx reported the package as ultimately delivered to and signed for on
`
`December 28, 2022 by “J.Fowlkes.” Exs. A, B.
`
`
`
`To request that ParkerVision correct the record, Realtek engaged Theodore Angelis of
`
`K&L Gates on a limited basis to inform ParkerVision of the omission. On January 4, 2023,
`
`Mr. Angelis wrote to ParkerVision’s counsel indicating that “[t]he actual tracking information
`
`shows that delivery did not occur because (pursuant to Taiwanese law) Realtek was not able to
`
`accept the documents tendered.” Dkt. 10-2 at 1. Mr. Angelis further requested that
`
`ParkerVision “immediately bring these facts to the attention of the Court and refrain from
`
`representing to the Court that service has been effected pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 4(h)(2) and 4(f)(2)(C)(ii).” Id. at 3. Mr. Angelis also made clear that Realtek had
`
`not authorized him to accept service in this matter. Id. at 1.
`
`In response, ParkerVision filed the present motion. Dkt. 10.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 9 of 17
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`1.
`
`Service of a Foreign Entity
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) states that a foreign entity served outside the
`
`United States must be served “in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual,
`
`except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i).” Rule 4(f) provides that service on the foreign
`
`defendant can be accomplished: (1) “by any internationally agreed means of service that is
`
`reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention”; (2)
`
`“if there is no internationally agreed means . . . by a method that is reasonably calculated to
`
`give notice”; or (3) “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court
`
`orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1)-(3).
`
`Consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re OnePlus Tech., this Court does
`
`not “order alternative service [under Rule 4(f)(3)] in every case in which more conventional
`
`means of service would be merely inconvenient.” 2021 WL 4130643, at *4. Rather, this Court
`
`has consistently required a plaintiff to attempt to follow the rules of the jurisdiction in which it
`
`seeks to serve the defendant. Trs. of Purdue Univ. v. STMicroelectronics N.V., No. 6:21-CV-
`
`00727-ADA, 2021 WL 5393711, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2021) (“[T]his Court has time-
`
`and-again recognized that ‘principles of comity encourage the court to insist, as a matter of
`
`discretion, that a plaintiff attempt to follow foreign law in its efforts to secure service of process
`
`upon defendant.’”) (quoting Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. Meraki Integrated Circuit
`
`(Shenzhen) Tech., Ltd., No. 6:20-CV-00876-ADA, 2021 WL 4974040, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct.
`
`25, 2021)); see also Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Hitachi Kokusai Elec. Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00423-
`
`ADA, 2021 WL 4441977, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 27, 2021) (“The Court will not permit
`
`alternative service here where Plaintiff has not shown that it attempted service through other
`
`means first.”); Monolithic Power, 2021 WL 4974040, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2021) (“The
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 10 of 17
`
`Court will not permit alternative service here where MPS has not shown that it has at least
`
`made some effort to serve [defendants] through other means first.”).
`
`Importantly, this Court has emphasized that it “will not invoke ‘alternative means of
`
`service under Rule 4(f)(3) based solely on the fact that service under [foreign law] is more
`
`cumbersome than more informal means of service on representatives of a foreign entity.”
`
`Aprese 2022 WL 891951, at *2 (quoting OnePlus, 2021 WL 4130643, at *3).
`
`2.
`
`Proper Service under Taiwanese Law
`
`The laws of Taiwan do not provide for service on a defendant by anyone other than
`
`the court clerk of Taiwan. Specifically, Part I, Chapter IV, Section 2 (Article 123) of the
`
`Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure only permits service of process by the clerk of Taiwan’s
`
`courts: “Except as otherwise provided, service of process will be administered by the court
`
`clerk on his/her own authority.” As such, service via Letters Rogatory is permitted. Service
`
`through FedEx is not. MDJ Industries, LC v. Kytsa Enter., Co. Ltd., Case No. C20-0069-
`
`JCC, 2021 WL 409961, at *3 (“[M]ultiple district courts faced with this question have
`
`concluded that the Code does not permit an individual other than the court clerk to properly
`
`effectuate service on Taiwanese corporations.”); Blue Spike, LLC v. ASUS Computer Int’l,
`
`Case No. 6:15-cv-1384-RWS-KNM, 2018 WL 3301705, at *3, 4 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2018);
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Beklin Int’l, Inc., 782 F.Supp.2d 868, 874-78 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
`
`IV. ARGUMENTS
`
`1.
`
`ParkerVision has not attempted to serve Realtek through proper means.
`
`ParkerVision’s motion is premature because ParkerVision has made no effort to serve
`
`Realtek through proper means. There is no dispute that under Taiwanese law, ParkerVision
`
`must serve Realtek through Letters Rogatory. Indeed, ParkerVision admits:
`
`In Taiwan, service of the summons and complaint must be administered by the clerk of
`a Taiwanese court with jurisdiction over Realtek. . . . Taiwanese law also allows a
`foreign party to request, by letters rogatory, the assistance of the courts of Taiwan in
`serving civil litigation documents.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`Dkt. 10 at 9. Thus, ParkerVision is not entitled to alternative service, because it has yet to
`
`make any attempt to properly serve Realtek in this case through Letters Rogatory.
`
`ParkerVision argues that “[a]lternative service of process is justified for Realtek
`
`because ParkerVision has made reasonable attempts to serve Realtek.” Dkt. 10 at 7. But
`
`ParkerVision has not. First, contrary to the FedEx history confirming that the package was
`
`returned to the shipper, ParkerVision argues that “Realtek actually accepted service on
`
`December 19, 2022 when delivery and receipt of the Court’s papers were confirmed.” Id. But
`
`even if Realtek received the package (which it did not), service was improper. Again, as
`
`ParkerVision admits, “the Taiwanese Code explicitly requires the court clerk to administer
`
`service of process.” Id. at 9. And improper service cannot form the basis of a reasonable
`
`attempt to serve. Corkcicle, LLC v. YFS Kitchen and Beauty, Case No. 6:21-cv-00385-ADA,
`
`2022 WL 3581183, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2022) (“Corkcicle twice attempted service by
`
`direct delivery to China without complying with the protocols of the Hague Convention . . . .
`
`Corkcicle’s UPS and FedEx mailings do not qualify as a reasonable attempt at conventional
`
`Hague service.”).
`
`Second, rather than pointing to other attempts at proper service (because there are
`
`none), ParkerVision cites to cases where the Court has granted alternative service. But if
`
`anything, these cases confirm that ParkerVision’s request should be denied as premature. In
`
`ParkerVision’s own words, “in Bandspeed, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, Case
`
`No. 1-20-cv-00765 (W.D. Tex.) Dkt. 37 at 8 (October 13, 2022), plaintiff actually attempted
`
`service through letters rogatory.” Dkt. 10 at 8. Notably, plaintiffs have regularly and
`
`successfully effectuated service in Taiwan through Letters Rogatory. See, e.g., Longhorn HD
`
`LLC. v. Acer Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00221 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. 19 at 3 (February 11, 2019)
`
`(confirming that service was effectuated on November 1, 2018, 92 days after plaintiff moved
`
`for issuance of Letters Rogatory); M-Red Inc. v. Acer Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00143 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 12 of 17
`
`Dkt. 17 at 3 (July 29, 2020) (confirming that service was effectuated on February 4, 2020, 222
`
`days after plaintiff moved for issuance of Letters Rogatory).
`
`In stark contrast, here, ParkerVision made no such attempt. See also Kortek Industries
`
`Pty Ltd. v. Chengdu Meross Tech. Co., Ltd., Case No. 6:22-CV-00490, 2022 WL 4227268, at
`
`*1 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2022) (“The Court will not permit alternative service here where
`
`Kortek has not shown that it made any effort to serve Meross through other, more traditional
`
`means first.”); Zanoprima Lifesciences, Ltd. v. Hangsen Int’l Grp. Ltd., Case No. 6:22-CV-
`
`00268-ADA, 2022 WL 1229290, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2022) (“The Court will not permit
`
`alternative service here where Zanoprima has not shown that it made any effort to serve
`
`Hangsen through other, more traditional means first.”).
`
`ParkerVision provides no legitimate basis to circumvent this Court’s rulings, Federal
`
`Circuit holdings, or Taiwanese law. ParkerVision must first attempt service of Realtek through
`
`Letters Rogatory before seeking alternative service.
`
`2.
`
`ParkerVision’s claims that proper service under Taiwanese law would be
`inconvenient does not justify alternative service.
`
`There are no special circumstances here that warrant alternative service at the outset.
`
`ParkerVision argues that alternative service is warranted because “[s]ervice under Taiwanese
`
`Law would be time-consuming and expensive and will complicate and multiply the
`
`proceedings.” Dkt. 10 at 9. Specifically, ParkerVision suggests that it is entitled to refuse to
`
`pursue Letters Rogatory because “statement[s] from the State Department’s website indicating
`
`that the Letters Rogatory process can typically take a year or more.” Id. (quotations omitted).
`
`But this is directly contrary to the Federal Circuit’s “concern” in OnePlus against the
`
`“invocation of alternative means of service under Rule 4(f)(3) based solely on the fact that
`
`service under [foreign law] is more cumbersome than more informal means of service on
`
`representatives of a foreign entity.” 2021 WL 4130643, at *3.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 13 of 17
`
`In fact, this Court has already rejected the argument that delay constitutes special
`
`circumstances that justifies alternative service. In Corkcicle, plaintiff argued that it was not
`
`reasonable “to wait months or years for its patent infringement claims to be addressed while
`
`the Chinese Central Authority serves documents on the physical address of [defendant].” 2022
`
`WL 3581183, at *4. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument stating that it “will not grant
`
`alter[n]ative service simply due to 18 months of expected delay before a Plaintiff even attempts
`
`Hague service.” Id.
`
`The Court explained that “special circumstances have justified departure from the more
`
`conventional means of service.” Id. These justifications “include war, futility, urgency, and
`
`actual delay, but not expected inconvenience.” Id. Here, ParkerVision has known for years
`
`that that its infringement allegations against Hisense, TCL, and LG relied on Realtek
`
`technology. But ParkerVision provides no explanation as to why it did not file its complaint
`
`against Realtek (and seek service through Letters Rogatory) back in 2020.
`
`ParkerVision cites to a series of cases to support its argument that cost and delay
`
`justifies alternative service. But each of these cases predates the Federal Circuit’s In re
`
`OnePlus decision, which this Court has recognized changed the analysis for alternative service.
`
`Aprese, 2022 WL 891951, at *2 (“This Court recently conformed its exercise of discretion to
`
`the ‘typical’ practices recently described by the Federal Circuit [in In re OnePlus].”). Further,
`
`ParkerVision only points to a single out-of-circuit case from 2010 relating to Taiwan to suggest
`
`that the inconvenience of prior service under Taiwanese law justifies alternative service—In re
`
`TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 270 F.R.D. 535, 537 (N.D. Cal. 2010). In TFT-LCD,
`
`the Northern District of California allowed alternative service because it deemed service under
`
`Taiwanese law to be less convenient than serving the defendant’s counsel. Id. at 537 (“service
`
`by letters rogatory [under Taiwanese law] is more expensive and time-consuming than serving
`
`defendant’s counsel”). But this is exactly the type of analysis rejected by the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 14 of 17
`
`in In re OnePlus. 2021 WL 4130643, at *4 (“The district court has not announced that it intends
`
`to order alternative service in every case in which more conventional means of service would
`
`be merely inconvenient.”).
`
`If ParkerVision had not procrastinated for over two years to pursue discovery of Realtek
`
`in the related Hisense, TCL, and LG cases, ParkerVision would not be before the Court
`
`requesting this unsupported exception to the service requirements. ParkerVision’s claim of
`
`expected inconvenience cannot justify alternative service without a first attempt for proper
`
`service under Taiwanese law, particularly here where any actual delay is the result of
`
`ParkerVision’s own dilatory actions.
`
`3.
`
`Taiwan’s status under the Hague Convention is irrelevant and does not
`justify using any means of service
`
`ParkerVision suggests that because Taiwan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention,
`
`the Court should effectively grant alternative service automatically without any other attempt
`
`at service. Dkt. 10 at 5. This argument is baseless. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2), “if there is
`
`no internationally agreed means,” service is to be properly made “by a method that is
`
`reasonably calculated to give notice: (A) as prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service
`
`in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction; (B) as the foreign authority
`
`directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request . . . .”3 (Emphasis added.) Taiwan
`
`specifies a means for service—service through the court clerk of Taiwan, which can be initiated
`
`through Letters Rogatory. Nowhere does the law state that a plaintiff is automatically entitled
`
`to alternative service if the jurisdiction in which the defendant resides is not a signatory to the
`
`Hague Convention.
`
`
`3 As discussed above, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(C) also allows for service “(i) delivering a copy
`of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; or (ii) using any form of
`mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt”
`“unless prohibited by the foreign country’s law.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 15 of 17
`
`ParkerVision’s cited cases do not state otherwise. As a threshold matter, again, the
`
`cases all predate In re OnePlus and are therefore of limited precedential value. Regardless,
`
`ParkerVision misstates the holdings, conflating the permitted means of alternative service with
`
`the basis for granting alternative service. For example, in UNM Rainforest Innovations v.
`
`D-Link Corp., the Court confirmed that “Taiwan is not a signatory to the Hague convention . . .
`
`[or] any other treaty related to international service . . . [therefore, defendant] cannot be served
`
`pursuant to the Hague Convention requirements.” Case No. 6-20-CV-00143-ADA, 2020 WL
`
`3965015, at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2020). But the Court did not find that the Taiwanese
`
`defendant could automatically be served by other means. To the contrary, the Court recognized
`
`that the requested service would not be justified if “Taiwanese law expressly prohibits service
`
`in the form requested.” Id. at *3.
`
`4.
`
`ParkerVision’s proposal to serve Realtek through K&L Gates or Orrick
`does not satisfy due process
`
`
`
`Serving Realtek through K&L Gates or Orrick would be improper. With respect to Mr.
`
`Angelis at K&L Gates, the Court has long recognized a defendant’s need to make a special or
`
`limited appearance to address errors in service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) allows a
`
`defendant to make such an appearance without submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court.
`
`Contrary to law, ParkerVision argues that discussions between parties seeking to address errors
`
`without burdening the Court should not be given the same protections. Dkt. 10 at 6.
`
`Specifically, ParkerVision argues that Mr. Angelis still acted on Realtek’s behalf even though
`
`he has not been authorized to accept service. Id. But allowing ParkerVision to serve Realtek
`
`through Mr. Angelis would set a problematic precedent. In situations where a party has
`
`misstated the record, the Court should permit counsel to represent a defendant in a limited
`
`capacity to correct those misstatements. Otherwise, errors in the record may go unchecked—
`
`in this case reversible entry of default judgment by the Court due to its reliance upon erroneous
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 16 of 17
`
`representations made by ParkerVision and its counsel. Accordingly, even if this Court elects
`
`to permit alternative service, service should not be allowed through Mr. Angelis.
`
`
`
`Similarly, service on Mr. Robert Benson at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP would
`
`also be improper. ParkerVision argues that such service satisfies due process because Mr.
`
`Benson currently represents Realtek in an unrelated ITC matter. But this would also create
`
`problematic precedent. Attorneys have duties to their clients that implicate conflicts of interest
`
`and other issues. Forcing an attorney to accept service for a client in a matter for which the
`
`attorney has not been retained would create complex ethical concerns.
`
`The cases cited by ParkerVision are inapposite. Not only does Rock Creek Networks,
`
`LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. predate In re OnePlus Tech, but there, the plaintiff
`
`incorrectly stated that service of U.S. counsel for Realtek is not prohibited under the Hague
`
`Convention (mistaking Taiwan as a signatory of the Hague Convention). Case No. 6-21- cv-
`
`00081 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 9 at 6. Further, Realtek did not have the opportunity to oppose and
`
`correct that misstatement. Id., Dkt. 10 (Mar. 30, 2021) at 1. In Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
`
`et al v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et al., the district court granted alternative service on
`
`outside U.S. counsel who had already appeared before the Court in the same matter or a related
`
`ITC matter involving the same parties and patents. Case No. 2-22-cv-00134 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt.
`
`39 (Aug. 2, 2022), at *5.
`
`Accordingly, the proposed method of alternative service does not comport with due
`
`process.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Realtek respectfully requests the Court deny ParkerVision’s
`
`motion to effect alternative service.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 17 of 17
`
`DATED: February 6, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Mark D. Siegmund_______
`By:
`Mark D. Siegmund
`State Bar No. 24117055
`STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE, PLLC
`8416 Old McGregor Road
`Waco, Texas 76712
`Telephone: (254) 651-3690
`Facsimile: (254) 651-3689
`Email: mark@swclaw.com
`
`Counsel For Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
`
`
`
`16
`
`