Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 1 of 13
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-22706-RNS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HMD AMERICA, INC., HMD GLOBAL
`OY, SHENZHEN CHINO-E
`COMMUNICATION CO. LTD., HON HAI
`PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD,
`TINNO MOBILE TECHNOLOGY CORP.,
`SHENZHEN TINNO MOBILE CO., LTD.,
`TINNO USA, INC., UNISOC
`TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`SPREADTRUM COMMUNICATIONS
`USA, INC., WINGTECH TECHNOLOGY
`CO. LTD., WINGTECH
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., HUAQIN CO.
`LTD., BEST BUY CO., INC., BEST BUY
`STORES L.P., TARGET CORP.,
`WALMART INC.,
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EFFECT ALTERNATIVE SERVICE UNDER
`RULE 4(f)(3)
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: November 21, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 2 of 13
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. Factual Background ................................................................................................................. 2
`A.
`Defendant Huaqin Has Valid Email Addresses and Plaintiff BNR Has Been Diligent in
`Efforts to Notify Huaqin of the Litigation .................................................................................. 3
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................. 4
`IV. Argument ................................................................................................................................. 6
`A.
`Service on Huaqin by Email Is Appropriate Under Rule 4(f)(3) ..................................... 6
`B.
`Formal Hague Service Will Cause Significant Delay and Expense................................. 7
`V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 3 of 13
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Prewitt Enters. v. OPEC,
` 353 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,
` 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`United States CFTC v. Aliaga.,
` 272 F.R.D. 617 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
` 339 U.S. 306 (1950) .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Tapestry, Inc. v. 2012coachoutlets.com,
` No. 17-24561-Civ-Scola, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233014 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2018) .................. 8
`
`Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Ink Techs. Printer Supplies, LLC,
` 291 F.R.D. 172 (S.D. Ohio 2013) ............................................................................................... 8
`
`Gamboa v. Ford Motor Co.,
` 414 F. Supp. 3d 1035 (E.D. Mich. 2019) .................................................................................... 8
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Goldah.com Network Technology Co., Ltd.,
` No. 17-2896 LHK, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168537 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) ......................... 9
`
`WeWork Cos. v. WePlus (Shanghai) Tech. Co.,
` Case No. 5:18-cv-04543-EJD, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5047 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) ............. 9
`
`Lepone-Dempsey v. Carrol County Comm'rs.
` 476 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co.
` 402 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`
`Statutes
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 .............................................................................................................................. 3
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR”) files this Motion to effect service by
`
`alternative means on Defendant Huaqin Co. Ltd. (“Huaqin”). After numerous unsuccessful
`
`attempts to secure Huaqin’s participation in this litigation, BNR seeks this Court’s permission to
`
`serve Huaqin through direct e-mail and through email to its U.S. Counsel. The proposed method
`
`of service is permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it is not prohibited by the
`
`Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (the “Hague
`
`Convention”) or any other applicable international agreement. Moreover, the proposed service
`
`would satisfy due process, as Huaqin publicly operates websites on the Internet and utilizes e-
`
`mail means as a reliable form of contact, as does Huaqin’s U.S. counsel.
`
`Granting the instant motion will avoid unwarranted and unfair delay. With the exception
`
`of Huaqin, Plaintiff BNR has been successful in serving all of the other litigants in this case. If
`
`the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion, it will enable the Huaqin Defendant to be similarly
`
`positioned as the others regarding response dates. Under these circumstances, the resources of
`
`the Court would be better served by granting Plaintiff’s motion, which will result in a more
`
`streamlined litigation process.
`
`The following table briefly summarizes BNR’s efforts to date to contact Huaqin to notify
`
`them of the pending lawsuit and obtain a waiver of service from them as to the Complaint. The
`
`Waiver of Service packet referenced below includes copies of the Complaint and Exhibits
`
`thereto (Dkt. 1), Summons, Form AO 399 (Waiver of the Service of Summons), and Form AO
`
`398 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons).
`
`September 9, 2022
`
`September 9, 2022
`
`Counsel for BNR emailed a copy of the Waiver of Service packet to
`huaqin@huaqin.com. (Ex. A at 1)
`Devlin Law Firm sent via FedEx a waiver of service packet to Huaqin
`at HUAQIN CO. LTD, NO. 10, KEYUAN ROAD SONGSHAN
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 5 of 13
`
`October 11, 2022
`
`October 12, 2022
`
`October 13, 2022
`
`October 13, 2022
`
`October 20, 2022
`
`October 26, 2022
`
`LAKE ZONE DONGGUAN, CN, 523808. Address listed at the
`bottom of Huaqin’s webpage, https://en.huaqin.com/about
`(FED EX # 5783 0877 3196). (Ex. A at 4.)
`September 12, 2022 Counsel for BNR, Adam Woodward, called Huaqin via phone at +86-
`21-61651266, listed at https://en.huaqin.com/about but received no
`answer
`September 14, 2022 An H. Li, identified as a receptionist/Front Desk person by FedEx,
`signed for the waiver packet when it was delivered to Huaqin at
`HUAQIN CO. LTD, NO. 10, KEYUAN ROAD SONGSHAN LAKE
`ZONE DONGGUAN, CN, 523808
`(FED EX # 5783 0877 3196). (Ex. A at 4, 7.)
`Counsel for BNR emailed a copy of the Waiver of Service packet to
`counsel for Huaqin. (Ex. A at 12)
`U.S. counsel for Huaqin, Mr. Robert Masters, responded to counsel for
`BNR’s email and requested a phone conversation to discuss. (Ex. A at
`12)
`Counsel for BNR spoke with U.S. counsel for Huaqin over the phone.
`U.S. counsel for Huaqin indicated they would ask their client if they
`were willing to waive service. U.S. counsel for Huaqin requested a
`copy of the proof of delivery from FedEx for the delivery of the waiver
`packet to Huaqin. (Ex. A at 11)
`Counsel for BNR provides U.S. counsel for Huaqin the requested proof
`of delivery from FedEx via email. (Ex. A at 11)
`Counsel for BNR again reaches out via email to U.S. counsel for
`Huaqin to again see if they will waive service after receiving the proof
`of delivery. (Ex. A at 11)
`U.S. counsel for Huaqin indicates via email that Huaqin has no record
`of receiving the waiver packet, despite the proof of delivery and also
`indicates that Huaqin has not decided to waive service yet. (Ex. A at
`10)
`Counsel for BNR again sends an email to U.S. counsel for Huaqin to
`determine if they have made a decision regarding waiver of service.
`(Ex. A at 10)
`U.S. counsel for Huaqin responds via email, disputing the accuracy of
`the FedEx proof of delivery (Ex. A at 9)
`November 11, 2022 U.S. counsel for Huaqin responds via email indicating that Huaqin did
`receive the waiver packet sent by BNR’s counsel, but only recently
`located it. U.S. counsel for Huaqin still maintains that Huaqin has not
`decided whether or not to waive service. (Ex. A at 8)
`
`November 1, 2022
`
`November 1, 2022
`
`
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`On August 26, 2022, BNR filed a Complaint against Defendants HMD America, Inc.,
`
`HMD Global Oy, Shenzhen Chino-E Communication Co. Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co.,
`
`Ltd., Tinno Mobile Technology Corp., Shenzhen Tinno Mobile Co., LTD., Tinno USA Inc.,
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 6 of 13
`
`Unisoc Technologies Co. Ltd., Spreadtrum Communications USA, Inc., Wingtech Technology
`
`Co., Ltd., Wingtech International, Inc., Huaqin Co. Ltd., Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores
`
`L.P., Target Corp., and Walmart Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 8,204,554, 7,319,889,
`
`RE 48,629, 8,416,862, 7,564,914, 7,957,450, 6,941,156, 6,696,941, 7,039,435, 6,963,129,
`
`6,858,930, 8,396,072, and 8,792,432. (Dkt. 1.) Defendant Huaqin is a Chinese company. (Dkt.
`
`1 at ¶14.) The Complaint alleges that the Defendants, including Huaqin, make, use, sell import
`
`and/or provide or cause to be used mobile phones and tablets that infringe the asserted patents.
`
`(See Dkt. 1 at ¶ 113.) With the exception of Huaqin, all of the other Defendants have been
`
`served. This court previous granted a motion for alternate service on Chino-E. (See Dkt. 62).
`
`A.
`
`Defendant Huaqin Has Valid Email Addresses and Plaintiff BNR Has Been
`Diligent in Efforts to Notify Huaqin of the Litigation
`
`According to Huaqin’s website, they provide one email addresses for correspondence:
`
`huaqin@huaqin.com. (Ex. A at 4, 5.) At the bottom of each page of its website, Huaqin lists six
`
`separate addresses for itself and related businesses but does not identify any U.S. affiliates. (Ex.
`
`A at 4.). Plaintiff mailed waiver packets to all six of these addresses, one of which Plaintiff had
`
`previously confirmed as being a valid mailing addresses for Huaqin. See Bell Northern
`
`Research, LLC v. HMD America Inc., No. 1:22-cv-21035-RNS, Dkt. 44 at 4–6 (S.D. Fla. July
`
`12, 2022).
`
`On September 9, 2022, the Devlin Law Firm sent a waiver of service packet containing
`
`the Complaint, Exhibits, and Forms AO 398 and AO 399 via FedEx to Huaqin at the No. 10,
`
`Keyuan Rd, Songshan Lake Zone, Dongguan, China, 523808 address. (Ex. A at 8.). The same
`
`day Devlin Law Firm also emailed a copy of the same to huaqin@huaqin.com (Ex. A at 12.).
`
`On September 12, 2022 Counsel for BNR, Adam Woodward, also attempted to reach
`
`Huaqin by phone at the phone number listed on their website (++86-21-61651266 listed at
`
`https://en.huaqin.com/about) to confirm the physical and email addresses. The call was not
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 7 of 13
`
`answered and no option to leave a voicemail was given. The email sent to huaqin@huaqin.com
`
`did not bounce back and therefore this email is considered an operational, valid email address.
`
`On September 14, 2022, FedEx successfully delivered the waiver of service packet to
`
`Huaqin at No. 10, Keyuan Rd, Songshan Lake Zone, Dongguan, China, 523808. An H.Li signed
`
`for the package at the front desk/receptionist area of the building.
`
`From October 11th to November 1st, counsel for BNR engaged in numerous email
`
`correspondences with Mr. Robert Masters, U.S. counsel for Huaqin, and had a phone call on
`
`October 13th. (See table above). Despite providing all available proofs and numerous
`
`opportunities for Huaqin to waive service, Huaqin has refused to do so.
`
`On November 11th, U.S. counsel for Huaqin admitted that Huaqin had in fact received
`
`the waiver packet that was sent to their Dongguang office (Ex. A at 8), but alleged that the
`
`document had been misplaced up until the week of November 7th , due to the individual
`
`receiving them not knowing what they were and not forwarding them to the correct party. (Ex.
`
`A at 8.) U.S. counsel for Huaqin again indicated that Huaqin had not yet decided whether to
`
`waive service or not, but that if BNR intended to file a motion for alternative service of process,
`
`they would want to be notified in order to file an opposition. (Ex. A at 8)
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Rule 4(f) provides means for effectuating service upon an individual defendant located in
`
`a foreign country. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1)–(3). The foreign defendant may be served using the
`
`methods authorized by the Hague Convention. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1). The foreign defendant
`
`may also be served under Rule 4(f)(3) “by other means not prohibited by international
`
`agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Service on a foreign defendant under
`
`Rule 4(f)(3) must be authorized by the court pursuant to its discretionary power. Prewitt Enters. v.
`
`OPEC, 353 F.3d 916, 921 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that a court’s decision on a motion for
`
`alternative service is discretionary) (citing Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 8 of 13
`
`(9th Cir. 2002)). The court’s discretionary exercise of Rule 4(f)(3) “is neither a last resort nor
`
`extraordinary relief.” Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., No. 05-CIV-21962-
`
`COOKE/BROWN, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39495, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2007) (citing Rio Props.,
`
`284 F.3d at 1015). Indeed, Rule 4(f) does not require a party to attempt service of process by the
`
`Hague Convention or “by those methods enumerated in Rule 4(f)(2), including by diplomatic
`
`channels and letters rogatory, before petitioning the court for alternative relief under Rule
`
`4(f)(3).” Rio Props. at 1014-15.
`
`Rule 4(h)(2) provides that a foreign corporation must be served “in any manner
`
`prescribed by Rule 4(f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2). A foreign corporation can be served pursuant
`
`to Rule 4(f)(3). United States CFTC v. Aliaga, 272 F.R.D. 617, 619 (S.D. Fla. 2011). The
`
`method of service on a foreign corporation under Rule 4(f)(3) must comport with “constitutional
`
`notions of due process.” Rio Props. at 1016. “[T]he method of service crafted by the district
`
`court must 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.” Id.
`
`(quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Specifically,
`
`What constitutes appropriate service varies depending on the circumstances of the
`case and turns on the court’s determination of whether the alternative method is
`reasonably calculated to apprise the parties of the pendency of the action and
`afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
`
`Tapestry, Inc. v. 2012coachoutlets.com, No. 17-24561-Civ-Scola, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`233014, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2018) (authorizing alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) on
`
`foreign defendants via e-mail and publication) (citing Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Veles Ltd., 2007
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19780, 2007 WL 725412, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2007).
`
`Service by e-mail is not prohibited by the Hague Convention. See, e.g., Tapestry, 2018
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233014, at *3. Moreover, this Court, and numerous district courts, have held
`
`that service by e-mail on a foreign defendant is permissible under Rule 4(f)(3) even where the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 9 of 13
`
`defendant’s country, such as China, has declared its opposition to the use of postal channels
`
`pursuant to article 10(a) of the Hague Convention. Id.; Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Ink Techs. Printer
`
`Supplies, LLC, 291 F.R.D. 172, 175 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (“Email service has been approved even
`
`where, as here, the country objects to Article 10 of the Hague Convention.”); Gamboa v. Ford
`
`Motor Co., 414 F. Supp. 3d 1035, 1042 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (“Email is not listed as a means of
`
`service under article 10.”); Microsoft Corp. v. Goldah.com Network Tech. Co., No. 17-CV-
`
`02896-LHK, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168537, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) (“Yet China’s
`
`objection to Article 10 does not prohibit the email service the Court ordered in the instant case”);
`
`WeWork Cos. v. WePlus (Shanghai) Tech. Co., No. 5:18-cv-04543-EJD, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`5047, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) (“Given the weight of authority, the court finds that
`
`China’s objection to Article 10 regarding postal service does not mean that email service is
`
`‘prohibited by international agreement.’”).
`
`Finally, service on U.S. counsel for Huaqin comports with due process. See Brookshire
`
`Bros., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39495, at *3 (authorization of service on defendant’s counsel via
`
`email).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Service on Huaqin by Email and U.S. Counsel Is Appropriate Under Rule
`
`A.
`4(f)(3)
`
`Here, service on foreign Defendant Huaqin by e-mail via its company listed e-mail
`
`address and the email address of its U.S. counsel satisfies due process by apprising Defendant of
`
`the pending litigation and providing it the opportunity to answer BNR’s claims. Defendant
`
`publicly operates a website on the Internet and provides electronic means to contact them via e-
`
`mail. The email address that BNR requests to be used for service is still publicly shown on
`
`Defendant’s website and Plaintiff’s attempts to use this e-mail address demonstrates that it is
`
`valid. The email address of Huaqin’s U.S. counsel is also valid as demonstrated by the email
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 10 of 13
`
`correspondence between the parties. Furthermore, Huaqin is already aware of the subject of the
`
`litigation and has been provided with a copy of the pleadings, as admitted in this email
`
`correspondence (Ex. A at 7–12)
`
`Accordingly, email service on Defendant Huaqin in this case is appropriate under Rule
`
`4(f)(3) as it is “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); see also Facebook, Inc. v. Banana
`
`Ads, LLC, No. C-11-3619-YGR, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42160 at *5-6 (finding that email
`
`service satisfies due process where defendants were “involved in commercial internet activities”
`
`and “rel[ied] on electronic communications to operate their businesses” and the plaintiff had
`
`“valid email addresses” for defendants); The NOCO Co., Inc. v. Shenzhen Lianfa Tong
`
`Technology Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-1855-CAB at *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 5, 2020),
`
`(finding that “[i]n light of Plaintiff’s good faith efforts to serve Defendants via physical (through
`
`the Waiver Package), telephonic and electronic means, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
`
`exhausted all means consistent with Defendants’ right to due process.”) As this Court held in
`
`Tapestry, e-mail service on foreign defendants based in China is not prohibited by the Hague
`
`Convention and is an approved means of service under Rule 4(f)(3). Tapestry, 2018 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 233014, at *4. Thus, e-mail service is a proper means of service in this case as well. See
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC v. HMD America Inc., No. 1:22-cv-21035-RNS, Dkt. 45 at 3–4
`
`(S.D. Fla. July 12, 2022) (holding that under similar circumstances, email service was proper on
`
`Huaqin.))
`
`B.
`
`Formal Hague Service Will Cause Significant Delay and Expense
`
`Compliance with the Hague Convention-mandated methods of service would result in
`
`unwarranted delay of these proceedings and unnecessary expense to BNR. China requires parties
`
`using Hague channels to provide Chinese translations of the documents to be served, which
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 11 of 13
`
`would require significant time and expense. (See Hague Conference on Private International
`
`Law website, available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/states/authorities/details3
`
`/?aid=243 (last visited October 14, 2022).) Once translated, the documents and request for
`
`service must be sent to the Central Authority, China’s Ministry of Justice, which will effect
`
`service either by mail or through a marshal. (See id.) The website of the Ministry of Justice
`
`does not provide any estimate as to the amount of time necessary to effect service. (See
`
`http://en.moj.gov.cn/ (last visited October 14, 2022.)
`
`In light of the expense involved in the use of Hague Convention procedures for service,
`
`and the uncertainty regarding the amount of time necessary to effect service upon Huaqin using
`
`Hague Convention procedures, BNR submits that its alternative means of service is reasonable
`
`under the circumstances. As other courts have recognized, “seeking to avoid unnecessary delay
`
`and expense is a valid reason to grant alternative service.” STC.UNM v. TP-Link Technologies
`
`Co., Ltd., Case No. 6:19-cv-00262-ADA at *4 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2019). China is a signatory
`
`to the Hague Convention and has not expressly objected to service of process by email, website
`
`posting, or social media messaging. Stat Med. Devices, Inc. v. HTL-Strefa, Inc., No. 15-20590-
`
`CIV, 2015 WL 5320947, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2015) (O’Sullivan, J.) (“This Court and many
`
`other federal courts have permitted service by electronic mail and determined that an objection to
`
`Article 10 of the Hague Convention, i.e. an objection to service through “postal channels” does
`
`not equate to an express objection to service via electronic mail.”).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the present
`
`motion and authorize service pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) upon Huaqin by e-mail to
`
`huaqin@huaqin.com and Huaqin’s U.S. counsel, Mr. Robert Masters at
`
`RMasters@sheppardmullin.com.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`Date: November 21, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jose I. Rojas
`Jose I. Rojas
`Florida Bar No.: 331546
`jrojas@rojaslawfirm.com
`Alexander F. Rojas
`Florida Bar No.: 124232
`arojas@rojaslawfirm.com
`ROJASLAW
`201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: (305) 446-4000
`Facsimile: (305) 985-4146
`
`Paul Richter
`prichter@devlinlawfirm.com
`Christopher Clayton
`cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com
`Adam Woodward
`Florida Bar No. 1029147
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251
`Email: awoodward@devlinlawfirm.com
`Adam J. Woodward
`Florida Bar No. 1029147
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251
`Email: awoodward@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), the undersigned certify that counsel for BNR met and
`
`conferred with counsel for Defendants regarding the issues raised in this Motion via email, and
`
`defendants HMD America Inc., HMD Global Oy, Unisoc Technologies Co. Ltd., Spreadtrum
`
`Communications USA Inc., Wingtech Technology Co. Ltd., Wingtech International, Inc., Best
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 13 of 13
`
`Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores L.P., Target Corp., Walmart Inc., who did not respond to requests
`
`to discuss the above motion, but were provided with copies, and Huaqin Co. Ltd., whose counsel
`
`communicated its opposition to this Motion and intention of filing a response in opposition.
`
`Defendant Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. took no position on the above motion after
`
`receiving it for review. The Tinno Defendants conditioned their consent on the inclusion of the
`
`following statement: “The Tinno Defendants ("Tinno") state that they do not oppose this motion
`
`as it does not relate to Tinno, but further state that Tinno’s non-opposition should not be taken as
`
`an admission that this type of alternative service against foreign defendants is generally proper.”
`
`The other Defendants do not oppose the relief requested herein.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 21, 2022, a copy of the foregoing, Plaintiff Bell
`
`Northern Research LLC’s Motion for Leave to Effect Alternative Service on Huaqin, was filed
`
`electronically. Notice of the filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing
`
`system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may access this filing
`
`through the Court’s system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jose I. Rojas
`Jose I. Rojas
`
`10
`
`