Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01193/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01193-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RPOST INTERNATIONAL LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

AUTHENTIX – AUTHENTICATION

TECHNOLOGIES LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-1193 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER

AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF PROCESS

BY EMAIL ON DEFENDANT AUTHENTIX

(Docket No. 21)

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ administrative motion, filed June 5, 2006, seeking an

order authorizing service of process by email on defendant Authentix – Authentication

Technologies Ltd. (“Authentix”), which, plaintiffs attest, is an Israeli company. (See Ben-Zvi

Decl. ¶ 5.)

Service of process on a foreign business entity by email is permissible under Rule

4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution where

such means of service is (1) directed by the Court; (2) not prohibited by international

agreement; and (3) 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. See Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007,

1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Case 3:06-cv-01193-MMC Document 26 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Israel is a signatory to the Hague Convention; a federal court is prohibited “from

issuing a Rule 4(f)(3) order in contravention of an international agreement, including the

Hague Convention[.]” See id. at 1015 n.4. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that service by

email is permitted under the Hague Convention. Plaintiffs expressly state they wish to

serve Authentix by email to avoid the time and cost involved in serving Authentix in

accordance with the Hague Convention. (See Motion at 4.) Compliance with the Hague

Convention “is mandatory in all cases to which it applies,” however. See Volkswagenwerk

Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 705 (1988). 

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ administrative motion for an order authorizing them to serve

Authentix by email is hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 21.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01193-MMC Document 26 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2