Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05784/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05784-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CELGARD, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHENZHEN SENIOR TECHNOLOGY 

MATERIAL CO. LTD. (US) RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05784-VKD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTED

SERVICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 34

Plaintiff Celgard, LLC (“Celgard”) filed this patent infringement action on September 16, 

2019. Defendants are Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. (“Senior-China”) and 

Shenzhen Senior Technology Material Co. Ltd. (US) (“Senior-US”). According to defendants, 

Senior-China is a publicly traded Chinese corporation, and Senior-U.S. is a California corporation 

and subsidiary of Senior-China. Dkt. No. 30 at ECF 6-7.

Celgard now moves for an order for “substituted service” under Rule 4(f)(3).1 

Specifically, Celgard asks that the Court not only permit defendants to be served via their U.S. 

counsel, Latham & Watkins LLP, but also retroactively deem service to be effective as of 

September 17, 2019 when Celgard emailed a copy of the complaint and summons to counsel at the 

Silicon Valley office of another law firm, Ropes & Gray LLP.

2

 

1 The present motion is a non-dispositive matter that does not require the full consent of all parties 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636. See, e.g., Carrico v. Samsung Elecs., Co. Ltd., No. 15-cv-02087-DMR 

(N.D. Cal., May 10, 2016). Although Celgard requested that its motion be briefed and heard on 

shortened time, the Court denied that request for lack of good cause. Dkt. No. 22.

2 Celgard also subsequently sent a copy of the complaint and summons to Ropes & Gray via 

Federal Express. Celgard says it initially attempted service on Ropes & Gray based on some 

involvement that firm reportedly had in connection with settlement discussions in another patent 

Case 5:19-cv-05784-VKD Document 36 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

After the present motion was filed, Celgard filed a proof of service with respect to SeniorU.S. Dkt. No. 29. Celgard and Senior-U.S. have since stipulated that Senior-U.S. may have an 

extension of time to November 21, 2019 to respond to Celgard’s complaint. Dkt. No. 32. 

Celgard’s pending motion for alternate service therefore is deemed moot as to Senior-U.S.

As for Senior-China, the dispute over alternate service remains unresolved. The United 

States and China are signatories to the Hague Convention, which provides a means of effecting 

service of process in this matter. However, the parties’ respective papers indicate that the timing 

and manner of service are not the focus of their ongoing disagreement. Indeed, Senior-China is

willing to waive formal service of process, and Celgard apparently is willing to give Senior-China 

until December 16, 2019 (a date proposed by Senior-China) to respond to the complaint. Dkt. No. 

30 at ECF 5; Dkt. No. 33 at ECF 10, 11. In the course of negotiating a possible compromise, 

however, both Celgard and Senior-China sought to impose additional, extraneous conditions on 

one another. Senior-China required Celgard to agree to refrain from moving for preliminary 

injunctive relief at any time before Senior-China responds to the complaint. For its part, Celgard 

insisted that defendants waive their right to proceed before a district judge appointed under Article 

III of the U.S. Constitution, and instead consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all 

proceedings in this matter, including trial. The parties apparently are now before the Court 

because they could not reach agreement on their respective proposed additional terms.

The Court offers no comment on the parties’ additional conditions, except to say that they

have no bearing on the present motion. The sole question presented is whether the Court should 

permit Senior-China to be served by a means other than through the Hague Convention. Upon 

consideration of the moving and responding papers, the Court grants the motion in part and denies 

it in part.

3

 

infringement action Celgard filed earlier this year, Celgard, LLC v. Targray Technology Int’l, Inc., 

No. 5:19-cv-02401-VKD. Neither Senior-China nor Senior-U.S. were named defendants in that 

prior suit, and Ropes & Gray did not represent any party to that action. Ropes & Gray 

subsequently advised that they do not represent Senior-China or Senior-U.S. in the present action 

and are not authorized to accept service of process.

3 The Court previously took the matter under submission without oral argument. Dkt. No. 22. 

Although the Court finds Senior-China’s sur-reply unnecessary to the resolution of this matter, it 

Case 5:19-cv-05784-VKD Document 36 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Rule 4(f) governs service of process on individuals and corporations outside the United 

States, and authorizes service “by any internationally agreed means of service,” including through

the Hague Convention. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Alternatively, Rule 

4(f)(3) allows service “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court 

orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Rule 4(f)(3) does not “create a hierarchy of preferred methods of 

service of process,” and “service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a last resort nor 

extraordinary relief.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 

2002) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Rather, the rule “is merely one means among 

several which enables service of process on an international defendant.” Id. at 1015. All that Rule 

4(f)(3) requires is service (1) directed by the court and (2) not prohibited by international 

agreement. Id. at 1014. Additionally, the alternate means of service must comport with due 

process. Id. at 1016. China is a signatory to the Hague Convention, and ordinarily, should be 

served in that manner unless the Court, in its discretion, determines that “the particularities and 

necessities of a given case require alternate service of process under Rule 4(f)(3).” Id.

Although Senior-China points out that Celgard has not yet attempted service under the 

Hague Convention, as noted above, Rule 4(f) does not prefer or require service by other means. 

Rio Properties, Inc., 284 F.3d at 1015 (“[N]o language in Rules 4(f)(1) or 4(f)(2) indicates their 

primacy, and certainly Rule 4(f)(3) includes no qualifiers or limitations which indicate its 

availability only after attempting service of process by other means.”); see also In re LDK Solar 

Sec. Litig., No. C07-05182 WHA, 2008 WL 2415186, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2008) 

(“Significantly, [Rule] 4(f)(3) stands independently of [Rule] 4(f)(1); it is not necessary for 

plaintiffs to first attempt service through ‘internationally agreed means’ before turning to ‘any 

other means not prohibited by international agreement.’”) (quoting Rule 4(f)(1), (3)).

Celgard proposes to serve Senior-China through its U.S. counsel and seeks retroactive 

permission to serve Ropes & Gray through the September 17 email Celgard sent to that firm. The 

Court declines to retroactively authorize the September 17 email, which was sent before Celgard 

 

has considered that filing, as well as Celgard’s opposing papers. Dkt. Nos. 34, 35.

Case 5:19-cv-05784-VKD Document 36 Filed 10/28/19 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sought leave to do so. Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 806 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that 

plaintiffs “must obtain prior court approval for the alternative method of serving process.”).

While Senior-China argues that service through email or Federal Express is not allowed

without prior court approval, Senior-China does not contend that service on its U.S. litigation 

counsel at Latham & Watkins through such means is prohibited by the Hague Convention or any 

other international agreement. Rather, Senior-China argues that the circumstances of the present 

action do not support alternate service at all.

Celgard’s justification for alternate service is weak. Celgard makes an unsupported claim 

that service through the Hague Convention will be too cumbersome and costly. Generally, the fact 

that alternate service will be faster does not, by itself, justify service by alternate means. Keck v. 

Alibaba.com, Inc., 330 F.R.D. 255, 259 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Nor has Celgard convincingly 

demonstrated that there is any particular urgency in this matter.

At the same time, however, Senior-China indisputably already has actual notice of this 

action. Indeed, both defendants have been actively communicating with Celgard and acting in this 

litigation through their counsel at Latham & Watkins. As noted above, Senior-U.S. has been 

served. Permitting alternate service as to Senior-China therefore will ensure that this matter will 

be able to proceed without undue delay. Accordingly, the Court authorizes service via email and 

Federal Express on Latham & Watkins, Senior-China’s U.S. counsel in this litigation. Celgard 

shall proceed to effect such service forthwith, and in any event, no later than November 4, 2019. 

The Court finds that, under the circumstances presented, these means of service comport with due 

process. See Juicero, Inc. v. iTaste Co., No. 17-cv-01921-BLF, 2017 WL 3996196, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. June 5, 2017) (finding that alternate service was reasonably calculated to apprise defendants 

of the pending action where the defendants were already in contact with plaintiff through their 

U.S.-based legal counsel). Senior-China shall have until December 16, 2019 to respond to the 

Case 5:19-cv-05784-VKD Document 36 Filed 10/28/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-05784-VKD Document 36 Filed 10/28/19 Page 5 of 5