United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Bell Northern Research, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HMD America, Inc., and others, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-22706-Civ-Scola

Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process

This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for 

Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants Pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) (ECF No. 61) seeking this Court’s 

authorization to effectuate service of process by email. For the reasons stated 

herein, the Court grants the motion. (ECF No. 61.) 

1. Background

On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC (“Bell 

Northern”), filed the instant civil action for patent infringement, alleging that 

the Defendants are engaging in “unauthorized and licensed use of” certain of 

Bell Northern’s patents. (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 43.)

In its Motion, the Plaintiff requests an order authorizing service of 

process on one Defendant, Shenzhen Chino-E Communication Co. Ltd. 

(“Chino-E”) by email service. (Mot. at 1.) The Plaintiff has attempted multiple 

methods of contacting and serving Defendant Chino-E, including emailing a 

waiver of service packet to the email addresses available on Chino-E’s website, 

mailing a waiver of service packet to Chino-E’s South Korean and Chinese 

mailing addresses via FedEx, and calling Chino-E’s business phone number 

listed on its website. (Mot. at 1-3; Ex. A.) Chino-E has not responded to any of 

these attempted communications. (Id.) The Plaintiff has served or obtained 

waivers of service from the rest of the Defendants, none of whom have objected 

to the relief requested here. (Id. at 9.) 

2. Analysis

Rule 4(f)(3) permits service “by other means not prohibited by 

international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Service 

pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) is neither “a last resort nor extraordinary relief.” See 

Rio Props. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002). All that is 

Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 1 of 3
required is that the proposed service is not prohibited by international 

agreement and such service comports with Constitutional due process, 

meaning that it is “reasonably calculated” to provide the defendants notice and 

an opportunity to defend. See Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1016; see also Chanel, 

Inc. v. Zhixian, No. 10-cv-60585, 2010 WL 1740695, at *2–3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 

2010) (Cohn, J.).

The Hague Convention does not expressly preclude service by email. See 

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Individuals, P’ships and Uninc. Ass’ns., No. 20-61122-

CIV, 2020 WL 4501765, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2020) (Altonaga, C.J.) And 

where, as here for certain of the Defendants, the address of the person to be 

served is not known, alternative service is not prohibited by international 

agreement. See Mycoskie, LLC v. 1688best, No. 18-cv-60925, 2018 WL 

4775643, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2018) (Moore, J.) (“Article 1 of the Hague 

Service Convention states that ‘[t]his Convention shall not apply where the 

address of the person to be served with the document is not known.’”). Service 

of process by email has been upheld in circumstances similar to those here. 

See, e.g., Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1018 (“When faced with an international ebusiness scofflaw, playing hide-and-seek with the federal court, email may be 

the only means of effecting service of process.”); see also Louis Vuitton, 2020 

WL 4501765, at *2 (holding that service by email and website posting is 

permitted where the defendants “conduct[] their businesses over the Internet,” 

“use[] email regularly in their businesses,” and the plaintiff shows that email is 

“likely to reach defendants”).

Here, Defendant Chino-E has at least one known and valid form of 

electronic contact, lists those forms of electronic contact on its website, and the 

Plaintiff has previously attempted to communicate with the Defendant at those 

email addresses. (Mot. at Ex. A.) 

Service by email is therefore reasonably calculated, under all 

circumstances, to apprise the Defendant of the pending action and afford it an 

opportunity to respond. Moreover, these are the most likely means of 

communication to reach the Defendant, who operates via the Internet and 

relies on electronic communications for the operation of its businesses. See 

Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Dorapang Franchise Store, No. 18-cv-61590, 2018 WL 

4828430, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2018) (Ungaro, J.). 

For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 61.) 

The Plaintiff is permitted to serve the Summonses, Complaint, and all other 

filings and discovery in this matter upon Defendant Chino-E by sending emails 

to the Defendant via the email accounts identified in Section V of the motion. 

The Plaintiffs shall file an email delivery confirmation, under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(l)(2)(B), as proof of service for Defendant Chino-E. 

Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 2 of 3
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on October 21, 2022.

____________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 3 of 3