Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01886/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01886-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

INTEL CORPORATION AND DELL, INC., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION,

Defendant. /

No. C-05-1886 MJJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation’s (“Defendant” or “CSIRO”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Intel Corporation and Dell,

Inc.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Complaint. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ claims should be

dismissed on two grounds under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) insufficiency of process

under Rule 12(b)(4); and (2) insufficiency of service of process under Rule 12(b)(5). For the

reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (“Complaint”) against Defendant

CSIRO on May 9, 2005. Defendant CSIRO is Australia’s national science agency – an arm of the

Australian government. Defendant received the summons and the Complaint by mail on May 13,

2005. The return address label names counsel for Plaintiffs as the sender. Plaintiffs contend,

however, that it was the clerk of court who sealed, addressed, and mailed the summons and
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

complaint, not Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Declaration of Steven J. McEvoy (“McEvoy Decl.”) at ¶¶ 2, 3,

4, 6.) Plaintiffs also had copies of the summons and complaint hand-delivered to the Australian

offices of both CSIRO’s Chief Executive and its General Counsel the day after the Complaint was

filed. The Complaint demanded an answer within twenty days of service. 

On May 31, 2005, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss, claiming that service was

defective because Plaintiffs’ counsel, rather than the clerk of court, sealed, addressed, and mailed the

summons and Complaint, which violated the service requirements of the Foreign Sovereign

Immunities Act (“FSIA”), which applies where instrumentalities of foreign governments are being

sued. Defendant also claims that summons is defective on its face because, pursuant to the FSIA,

CSIRO, as an agency of a foreign state, should have been given sixty days to respond to the

Complaint, rather than the twenty days given to ordinary foreign corporations. Thereafter, on

numerous occasions, by both telephone and in writing, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Defendant to

withdraw its motion in light of the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Straub v. AP Green, Inc., 38 F. 3d 448

(9th Cir. 1994), and offered to provide Defendant sixty days to respond to the Complaint. Defendant

declined.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to

any procedural imposition on a named defendant.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Mitchell Pipe Stringing,

Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999). It is a “bedrock principle” that “[a]n individual or entity named as a

defendant is not obligated to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a

court’s authority, by formal process.” Id. at 347. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(1) provides that the proper procedure for service upon

foreign governments and their agencies is governed by the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1608. § 1608

describes the various methods by which service on a foreign government may be effected. Absent a

special arrangement between the plaintiff and the foreign agency, and absent service to an officer or

agent of the foreign instrumentality in the United States, service may be effected, pursuant to §

1608(b)(3)(B), “by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by

the clerk of the court to the agency or instrumentality to be served . . . .” Pursuant to § 1608(d) of
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

the FSIA, agencies of foreign governments must respond to properly-served complaints within sixty

days of service, rather than the twenty days given to ordinary foreign corporations. 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) allow a court to dismiss a complaint

if process and service of process are insufficient.

ANALYSIS

The parties do not dispute that Defendant CSIRO is an agency or instrumentality of the

government of Australia and that as such, the FSIA governs service of process on CSIRO. The

parties also do not dispute that CSIRO was provided with the summons and Complaint in three

different ways which provided CSIRO with actual notice of the lawsuit. The only issues in dispute

here are: (1) whether the clerk of court sealed, addressed, and mailed the summons and complaint in

compliance with § 1608(b)(3)(B) and if not, whether this error warrants dismissal of Plaintiffs’

Complaint; and (2) whether Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed in light of Plaintiffs’ failure,

in the summons, to provide Defendant sixty days to respond. The Court finds that dismissal is not

warranted here.

A. Defective Service of Summons and Complaint

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed because service was not

effected in compliance with § 1608 of the FSIA. Plaintiffs contend that they served CSIRO in

compliance with § 1608(b)(3)(B) by contacting the clerk of court, asking the clerk about the

procedure for complying with the requirements for serving a foreign government instrumentality,

and following the clerk’s instructions for compliance. Plaintiffs also contend that even if the

procedure followed does not strictly comply with the FSIA’s requirements, the service substantially

complied with the FSIA, and substantial compliance is sufficient. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs.

1. The Clerk of Court Effected Service on Defendant CSIRO.

First, with respect to the procedure used by Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Defendant was

properly served by the method described in § 1608(b)(3)(B). According to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’

counsel contacted the clerk of court to inquire about the proper procedure for complying with that

subsection of the FSIA. At the clerk of court’s instruction, Plaintiffs contend, counsel for Plaintiffs

brought to the clerk’s office filled-out address labels as well as the summons and Complaint in an
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 Defendant CSIRO’s contention that Straub is no longer good law in light of the Supreme

Court’s holding in Murphy Brothers is without merit.

4

unsealed envelope. According to Plaintiffs, a representative from the clerk’s office, Rufino Santos,

then inspected the documents and the labels, sealed the envelope, and affixed the labels to the

envelope. Mr. Santos then accompanied counsel for Plaintiffs to the post office and observed the

mailing of the envelope. 

Although Plaintiffs’ counsel’s name appears on the return address label of the package, the

Court finds, based on the representations of Plaintiffs’ counsel, that the clerk of court effected the

service of the summons and Complaint in compliance with the service requirements of the FSIA. 

2. In Any Event, Service Substantially Complied With the FSIA.

Even if the service procedure employed by Plaintiffs (and the clerk of court) did not comply

with § 1608(b)(3)(B), the Court finds that the FSIA’s service requirements were substantially

complied with such that Plaintiffs’ Complaint should not be dismissed. In Straub, 38 F.3d at

453–54, the Ninth Circuit held that courts should employ a substantial compliance test to determine

whether the FSIA has been complied with.1 “The substantial compliance test . . . is satisfied . . . if

[the defendant] received actual notice of the lawsuit.” Id. “[T]he pivotal factor is whether the

defendant receives actual notice and was not prejudiced.” Id. at 453. Here, there is no dispute that

Defendant received the summons and Complaint on, at the latest, May 13, 2005. Thus, Defendant

received actual notice of the lawsuit. Moreover, Defendant has provided no evidence of any

prejudice suffered due to the manner of service employed. Accordingly, pursuant to the Ninth

Circuit’s holding in Straub, the Court finds that Plaintiffs substantially complied with the FSIA’s

service requirements.

B. Summons Defective On Its Face

Defendant also contends that Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed since the summons,

demanding that CSIRO respond within twenty days, is defective on its face because it does not

comply with the FSIA. Defendant is right that it should have been given sixty days to respond. 

However, as discussed supra, the appropriate inquiry is whether Defendant received actual notice of

the lawsuit and whether Defendant was prejudiced by the defect. See Straub, 38 F.3d at 453–54. 
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Defendant received actual notice of the lawsuit by, at the latest, May 13, 2005. Although the

summons erroneously demanded a response from CSIRO within twenty days rather than sixty,

Plaintiffs have repeatedly offered to permit Defendant sixty days to respond. Accordingly, there is

no showing that Defendant has been prejudiced by the technical mistake in the summons. Thus, the

Court declines to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED. 

Defendant CSIRO must respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint by August 1, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July _8_, 2005 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE