Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 10 Filed 05/25/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 568
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`WILLOW INNOVATIONS, INC.,
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00229
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`CHIARO TECHNOLOGY, LTD,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLOW’S MOTION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS BY MAIL
`
`Plaintiff Willow Innovations, Inc. (“Willow”) requests the assistance of the Clerk of Court
`
`in serving Defendant Chiaro Technology, Ltd. (“Defendant”), an entity based in the United
`
`Kingdom (“UK”). Service by mail is appropriate because it is (1) expressly permitted under the
`
`Federal Rules, (2) not prohibited by international agreement, and (3) reasonably calculated to give
`
`notice to Defendant of this lawsuit. In addition, because Defendant does not maintain an agent for
`
`service in the U.S., service by mail is the most efficient means of accomplishing service.
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2), a foreign corporation, partnership, or other
`
`unincorporated association located 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).”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2). Rule 4(f), in turn, states that an individual in a foreign country may be
`
`served:
`
`(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 10 Filed 05/25/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 569
`
`
`
`notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial
`and Extrajudicial Documents;
`
`(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but
`does not specify other means, 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; or
`
`(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country’s law, by:
`
`
`(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; or
`
`(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) (emphasis added).
`
`Defendant, a UK-based entity, may be served by mail under Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii). Both the
`
`U.S. and the UK are signatories to the Hague Service Convention. Hague Service Convention,
`
`Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638. Service “by postal channels” is expressly
`
`permitted under Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention, “[p]rovided the State of destination
`
`does not object.” Id., art. 10. And the UK has not objected to service by mail under Article 10.
`
`See
`
`https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/Judicial-Assistance-Country-
`
`Information/UnitedKingdom.html (“The United Kingdom did not object to Article 10(a) of the
`
`Convention and does permit service via postal channels.”).
`
`This Court has previously authorized service by mail under Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) as to
`
`countries that have not objected to Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention. See, e.g., Vista
`
`Peak Ventures, LLC v. GiantPlus Tech. Co., No. 2:19-cv-00185-JRG, 2019 WL 4039917, at *2
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 10 Filed 05/25/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 570
`
`
`
`(E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2019) (authorizing service by mail to defendant located in Taiwan);
`
`IntelliGender, LLC v. Soriano, No. 2:10-cv-00125-JRG, 2012 WL 215066, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan.
`
`24, 2012) (authorizing service by mail to defendant located in Chile). Accordingly, service by
`
`mail to Defendant’s principal place of business in the UK is proper and reasonably calculated to
`
`give Defendant notice of this lawsuit.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii), Willow will provide to the Clerk a pre-addressed envelope
`
`with pre-paid postage, along with the Complaint and Summons, for transmission by Federal
`
`Express to Defendant’s principal office in the UK at the address below, with signed receipt
`
`requested.
`
`
`
`Chiaro Technology, Limited
`63-66 Hatton Garden, Second Floor
`London, United Kingdom, EC1N 8LE
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 10 Filed 05/25/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 571
`
`Dated: May 25, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Timothy S. Durst
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Timothy S. Durst (TX #00786924)
`tdurst@omm.com
`Cason Garrett Cole (TX #24109741)
`ccole@omm.com
`2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1700
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (972) 360-1900
`Facsimile: (972) 360-1901
`
`Robert F. Shaffer (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`rshaffer@omm.com
`Jason Fountain (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`jfountain@omm.com
`1625 Eye St., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 383-5300
`Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
`
`Carolyn S. Wall (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`cwall@omm.com
`Times Square Tower
`7 Times Square
`New York, New York 10036
`Telephone: (212) 326-2000
`Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
`
`Laura Burson (TX # 24091995)
`lburson@omm.com
`400 South Hope St
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 430-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`WILLOW INNOVATIONS, INC.
`
`
`4
`
`
