Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01960/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01960-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

OEM Group Incorporated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SEMSYSCO Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-13-01960-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff OEM Group, Inc. (“OEM”) has filed a motion for alternate service. 

Doc. 26. The motion is fully briefed and no party has requested oral argument. The 

Court will grant the motion. 

 OEM requests that the Court permit alternate service on Defendant SEMSYSCO, 

Semiconductor Systems Corporation GmbH (“SEMSYSCO Austria”), pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). SEMSYSCO Austria is a resident of Austria. 

OEM argues that personal service on SEMSYSCO Austria is impractical and unduly 

burdensome. Doc. 26 at 7. OEM asserts that there are two options for effectuating 

personal service on SEMSYSCO Austria: (1) letters rogatory, which would cost a total of 

$18,170 with an estimated turnaround time of four to five months; or (2) mail, which 

would cost a total of $14,300 with a turnaround time of three to ten weeks and which is 

unreliable. Id. at 7-8. In lieu of personal service on SEMSYSCO Austria abroad, OEM 

requests permission to serve the Summons and Complaint as well as the other filings to 

Case 2:13-cv-01960-DGC Document 36 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

date at SEMSYSCO Austria’s domestic address as well as on Co-defendant 

SEMSYSCO, Inc. and on non-party The Thompson Group, Inc. Doc. 26 at 1; Doc. 35 

at 7. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) authorizes service of process on a foreign 

business entity in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(f). Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l 

Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). Service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be 

(1) directed by the court and (2) not prohibited by international agreement. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(f)(3). “No other limitations are evident from the text [of Rule 4(f)(3)]. In fact, as 

long as court-directed and not prohibited by an international agreement, service of 

process under Rule 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in contravention of the laws of the 

foreign country.” Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1014. Service of process under 

Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a “last resort” nor “extraordinary relief,” but “is merely one means 

among several which enables service of process on an international defendant.” Id. 

 To pass constitutional muster, a method of service approved by a district court 

must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties 

to the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” 

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Applying this 

construction of Rule 4(f)(3) and the standard articulated in Mullane, courts have 

authorized a wide variety of alternative methods of service. See SEC v. Tome, 833 F.2d 

1086, 1094 (2d Cir. 1987) (service of process by publication in the Int’l Herald Tribune); 

Int'l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 593 F.2d 166, 176–78 (2d Cir. 1979) (service by mail to 

last known address); New Eng. Merchs. Nat'l Bank v. Iran Power Generation & 

Transmission Co., 495 F.Supp. 73, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (service by telex for Iranian 

defendants); Levin v. Ruby Trading Corp., 248 F.Supp. 537, 541–44 (S.D.N.Y. 1965) 

(employing service by ordinary mail); Forum Fin. Group, 199 F.R.D. 22, 23–24 (D.Me. 

2001) (service on defendant's attorney); In re Int'l Telemedia Assoc., 245 B.R. 713, 719–

20 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000) (service via email). 

 OEM asserts that SEMSYSCO Austria is not incorporated in the United States and 

Case 2:13-cv-01960-DGC Document 36 Filed 03/24/14 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

does not have a statutory agent designated to receive process. Doc. 35 at 1. OEM 

presents evidence, however, that The Thompson Group is the parent company of both 

SEMSYSCO, Inc. and SEMSYSCO Austria. Doc. 26 at 5. In addition, SEMSYSCO 

Austria and The Thompson Group share the same U.S. address at 1885 Whitefish Stage 

Rd., Kalispell, MT 59901. 

 Co-defendant SEMSYSCO, Inc. does not dispute OEM’s factual assertions 

alleging a close connection between SEMSYSCO Austria, SEMSYSCO, Inc., and The 

Thompson Group. SEMSYCO, Inc. argues, however, that alternative service is 

inappropriate because OEM has failed to show that The Thompson Group or 

SEMSYSCO, Inc. are the alter egos of SEMSYSCO Austria or that they otherwise 

exercise control over SEMSYSCO Austria. Doc. 31 at 2-3. The Court finds this 

argument unpersuasive. Neither Rule 4(f)(3) nor Mullane require that alternate service 

be made on a party that controls a defendant. Instead, OEM need only show that 

alternate service on SEMSYSCO, Inc. or The Thompson Group is reasonably calculated 

to apprise SEMSYSCO Austria of the pendency of the action and afford it an opportunity 

to present its objections. SEMSYSCO, Inc. also appears to argue that OEM’s motion for 

alternative service should be denied because OEM has delayed service of process on 

SEMSYSCO Austria for nearly four months. Attempts at conventional service are not, 

however, prerequisites for alternate service. Rio Properties, Inc., 284 F.3d at 1015.1

 

 The Court concludes that OEM has made the requisite showing under Rule 4(f)(3) 

and Mullane to justify alternative service on SEMSYSCO, Inc. and The Thompson 

Group. Service on SEMSYSCO Austria at its domestic address in addition to alternate 

service on its parent and sibling companies in the United States satisfies Mullane. The 

Court will also require OEM to notify SEMSYSCO Austria by email of the pendency of 

this action, this order authorizing alternate service, and the time and method of alternate 

 

1

 Similarly, the Court is not persuaded by SEMSYSCO, Inc.’s argument that the complaint and related documents must be translated under Austrian law. SEMSYSCO 

Austria does business in the U.S. in English and has an office in Montana, as does The 

Thompson Group and SEMSYSCO, Inc. 

Case 2:13-cv-01960-DGC Document 36 Filed 03/24/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

service on SEMSYSCO, Inc. and The Thompson Group. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for alternate service (Doc. 26) is 

granted as set forth above. Service shall be completed on or before April 11, 2014. 

 Dated this 24th day of March, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01960-DGC Document 36 Filed 03/24/14 Page 4 of 4