1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

TERRESTRIAL COMMS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEC CORPORATION,

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 6-20-CV-00096-ADA

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF TERRESTRIAL COMMS LLC’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO EFFECT ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

Came on for consideration this date the Motion of Plaintiff, Terrestrial Comms LLC 

(“Terrestrial”), for Leave to Effect Alternative Service, filed on April 20, 2020. ECF No. 7. 

Defendant’s, NEC Corporation (“NEC”), filed its response on April 29, 2020. ECF No. 11. 

Terrestrial submitted its reply on May 4, 2020. ECF No. 14. After having reviewed the parties’ 

briefs, case file, and applicable law, the Court has determined that Plaintiff Terrestrial Comms 

LLC’s Motion for Leave to Effect Alternative Service should be GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

Terrestrial filed its complaint on February 10, 2020, alleging infringement of the four

patents-in-suit.1 ECF No. 1 at 3. Terrestrial alleged that NEC has multiple products2and systems 

that directly and continuously infringe on the asserted patents. Id. at 2. NEC is a Japanese 

corporation with its headquarters at 7-1, Shiba 5chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8001, Japan. Id.

at ¶2. 

1 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,037,134 (the “ ’134 Patent”); 7,098,850 (the “ ’850 Patent”); 7,193,563 (the “ ’563 Patent”); 

and 7,411,552 (the “ ’552 Patent”), (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). ECF No. 1 at 3. 

2 The Complaint focuses on two different NEC products and systems. Id. at 1. These include; (1) NEC makes, uses, 

imports, sells, and/or offers for sale the NEC SL1100 telephone system amongst other similar telephone system, 

(collectively, “Accused Telephone Products”). Id. at ¶8–9. (2) The production, use, import, sell, and/or offer for sale 

the NEC MultiPresenter Stick amongs other similar telephone system, (collectively, “MultiPresenter Products”). Id. 

at ¶10–11.

Case 6:20-cv-00096-ADA Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 9
2

On April 21, 2020, Terrestrial’s counsel, Mr. Ray Mort contacted NEC’s undersigned 

counsel, Mr. Brian Gearing, and requested that NEC waive service or that Mr. Gearing accept 

service on NEC’s behalf. Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. (“Def.’s Resp.”), ECF Nos. 11-3; 13-1. In 

response, Mr. Gearing stated that he is “not authorized by NEC to accept service” and again 

declined to waive service. Id. Mr. Gearing told Terrestrial’s counsel that “if Terrestrial desires to 

effectuate service on NEC in connection with the two cases it filed in [the Western District of 

Texas], it must do so pursuant to the Hague Convention.” Id.

On April 22, 2020, Terrestrial filed a Motion for Leave to Effect Alternative Service on 

NEC. Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 7. Terrestrial argues that alternative service of process is justified and 

seeks to serve NEC by emailing its known U.S. counsel, Brian Gearing, pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Id. at 3. NEC argues that the Court should deny Terrestrial’s request 

for alternative service because service of process on NEC must comply with the procedures set 

forth by the Hague Convention. Def.’s Resp., at 3-5. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Service of process on a foreign defendant must comply with: (1) the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure; (2) international agreements entered into by the United States and the relevant 

foreign country; and (3) the due process protections afforded by the United States Constitution. 

1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

Rule 4(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service of process on 

corporations such as Defendants, NEC and NECAM. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h). Pursuant to Rule 

4(h)(2), service on a corporation at a place not within any judicial district of the United States is 

to be conducted in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual except for 

personal delivery under Rule (4)(f)(2)(C)(i). Id.

Case 6:20-cv-00096-ADA Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 9
3

Pursuant to Rule 4(f), service on a foreign defendant must comply with one of three 

provisions. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(f). Rule 4(f)(1) states that service may be made by any means 

specified by any international agreement. Id. Rule 4(f)(2) provides several methods of service to 

an individual in a country when there is no applicable international agreement.3Id. Rule 4(f)(3) 

permits a party to use an alternative method of service if the party obtains permission of the court 

and the method is not otherwise prohibited by international agreement. Id. Thus, so long as the 

method of service is not prohibited by international agreement, the Court has considerable 

discretion to authorize an alternative means of service. See Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 

284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002) (“As obvious from its plain language, service under Rule 

4(f)(3) must be (1) directed by the court; and (2) not prohibited by international agreement. No 

other limitations are evident from the text.”). 

Further, a plaintiff does not have to attempt to effect service under Rule 4(f)(1) prior to 

requesting the authorization of an alternative method of service pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3). Affinity

Labs of Texas, LLC v. Nissan N. Am. Inc., No. WA:13-cv-369, 2014 WL 11342502, at *1 (W.D. 

Tex. July 2, 2014); See Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1015 (“By all indications, court-directed service 

under Rule 4(f)(3) is as favored as service available under Rule 4(f)(1) or Rule 4(f)(2).”). 

However, even when “other methods of obtaining service of process are technically allowed, 

principles of comity encourage the court to insist, as a matter of discretion, that a plaintiff 

attempt to follow foreign law in its efforts to secure service of process upon defendant.” See 

Midmark Corp. v. Janak Healthcare Private Ltd., No. 3:14-cv-088, 2014 WL 1764704, at *2 

(S.D. Ohio May 1, 2014). 

3 Rule 4(f)(2) is not at issue in this case. 

Case 6:20-cv-00096-ADA Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 9
4

2. The Hague Convention 

The International Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial 

Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague Convention”) is an international treaty 

governing the service abroad of foreign defendants. 20 U.S.T. 362, T.I.A.S. 6638, Art. 1.4 Direct 

“service pursuant to Hague Convention procedures is required only if the method of serving 

process involves the transmittal of documents abroad.” Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp., U.S.A., 

891 F.2d 533, 537 (5th Cir. 1990); See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 

694, 707 (1988) (“The only transmittal to which the [Hague] Convention applies is a transmittal 

abroad that is required as a necessary part of service.”). If alternative means to effectuate service 

exist, strict compliance with the service requirements under the Hague Convention is not always 

mandatory. Brown v. China Integrated Energy, Inc., No. 11-2559 MMM, 285 F.R.D. 560, 564 

(C.D. Cal. 2012). The method of serving process is governed by the long-arm statute of the 

forum state. Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 706. 

3. Constitutional Due Process Requirements 

Because the claims were brought in the Western District of Texas, an alternative method 

of service of process is valid if it complies with Texas’ long-arm statute. The Texas long-arm 

statute does not require the transmittal of documents abroad when serving a foreign defendant. 

Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l, LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 3:17-cv-01827-N, 2018 WL 3330022, 

at *3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2018) (quoting Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 

569, 575 (Tex. 2007)).

Courts have repeatedly interpreted the Texas long-arm statute “to reach as far as the 

federal constitutional requirements of due process will allow.” CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 

591, 594 (Tex. 1996); Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C.,

4 The Hague Convention currently has 76 members, including the United States and Japan as signatories. Id. 

Case 6:20-cv-00096-ADA Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 9
5

815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991); U-Anchor Adver. Inc. v. Burt, 553 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Tex. 

1997). To satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process, the method of service must be 

“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.” Mullane v. Cent. 

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Due process is satisfied when efforts at 

giving notice provide fundamental fairness by exhibiting a reasonable probability of actual 

notice. Id. at 317-18. 

III. DISCUSSION 

Terrestrial requests leave to effect alternative service under Rule (4)(f)(3) to serve NEC 

by emailing NEC’s U.S. counsel, Brian Gearing. Pl.’s Mot. at 3. NEC argues that the Court 

should deny Terrestrial’s request because service of process on NEC must comply with the 

procedures set forth by the Hague Convention. Def.’s Resp. at 3–5. In its Reply, Terrestrial 

argues that service pursuant to the Hague Convention is not mandatory and that alternative 

service of process on NEC is justified. Pl.’s Reply, ECF No. 23 at 2–4. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court agrees with Terrestrial and finds that serving NEC’s counsel by email comports 

with constitutional due process requirements. 

A. Service Pursuant to the Hague Convention Procedures Is Not Mandatory

NEC argues that Terrestrial’s service of process on NEC must comply with the 

procedures set forth by the Hague Convention. Def.’s Resp. at 3. Terrestrial argues that serving a 

foreign defendant pursuant to the Hague Convention’s procedures is not always mandatory. Pl.’s 

Reply at 3–4. The Court agrees with Terrestrial. Here, “alternative means to effectuate service 

exist, [so] strict compliance with the service requirements under the Hague Convention is not 

mandatory.” Brown, 285 F.R.D. at 564. 

Case 6:20-cv-00096-ADA Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 5 of 9
6

Attempting service under the Hague Convention is not a prerequisite to requesting 

alternative service. See Affinity 2014 WL 11342502, at *1 (“A plaintiff does not have to attempt 

to effect service under Rule 4(f)(1) or Rule 4(f)(2) prior to requesting the authorization of an 

alternative method of service pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3).”). However, district courts are more likely 

to permit alternative service by email if service in compliance with the Hague Convention was 

attempted. See, e.g. WhosHere, Inc. v. Orun, No. 1:13-cv-00526-AJT-TRJ, 2014 WL 670817, at 

*3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 20, 2014) (permitting service by email after plaintiff's attempts to serve 

Turkish defendant via the Hague Convention were unsuccessful); F.T.C. v. PCCare247 Inc., No. 

12 Civ. 7189 (PAE), 2013 WL 841037, at *2-4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2013) (permitting service by 

email and through social media after plaintiff's attempts to serve Indian defendant via the Hague 

Convention were unsuccessful); Sulzer Mixpac AG v. Medenstar Indus. Co., No. 15 Civ. 1668 

(JSR), 312 F.R.D. 329, 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (permitting email service after plaintiff's attempts to 

serve Chinese defendant via the Hague Convention were unsuccessful).5 Here, Terrestrial 

attempted to comply with the formal service requirements of the Hague Convention prior to 

seeking alternative service on NEC. ECF No. 6. 

B. Email Service on NEC’s Counsel is Justified and Comports with Due Process

Terrestrial requests that the Court authorize service on NEC by emailing U.S. counsel, 

Mr. Gearing. Pl.’s Mot. at 3. NEC argues that service on Mr. Gearing would be improper 

because he is not authorized to accept service on NEC’s behalf. ECF Nos. 11-2; 11-3; 12-1. The 

5 See also Bazarian Int’l Fin. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Desarroloos Aerohotelco, C.A., No. 13-1981 (BAH), 168 F. Supp. 

3d 1, 13–16 (D.D.C. 2016) (permitting service by email after plaintiff had attempted to serve foreign defendants via 

the Hague Convention and investigator was unable to locate defendant's whereabouts); Henry F. Teichmann, Inc. v. 

Caspian Flat Glass OJSC, No. 2:13 cv-458, 2013 WL 1644808, at *1–2 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2013) (permitting email 

service on Russian defendant after stating that “the record demonstrates that the Central Authority of the Russian 

Federation denies all [Hague Convention service] requests originating from the United States”); Popular 

Enterprises, LLC v. Webcom Media Group, Inc., No. 3:03-cv-565, 225 F.R.D. 560, 562 (E.D. Tenn. 2004) 

(permitting email service after Plaintiff’s attempts to comply with the Hague Convention’s requirements were 

unsuccessful because defendant’s mailing address was unknown). 

Case 6:20-cv-00096-ADA Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 6 of 9
7

Court finds NEC’s argument to be without merit. District courts routinely direct service on an 

international defendant’s counsel under Rule 4(f)(3) even if the counsel has not been expressly 

authorized to accept service on the defendant’s behalf. 6 

Due process does not require that the individuals served on behalf of foreign defendants 

have represented them or been authorized to accept service on their behalf. Brown, 285 F.R.D. at 

565–66. Rather, the method of service “must be such as one desirous of actually informing the 

absentee. . . . The reasonableness and hence the constitutional validity of any chosen method 

may be defended on the ground that it is in itself reasonably certain to inform those affected.” 

Mullane, 399 U.S. at 315. “A number of courts . . . have sanctioned service on United States 

counsel as an alternative means of service under Rule 4(f)(3) without requiring any specific 

authorization by the defendant for the recipient to accept service on its behalf.” Freedom Watch, 

Inc. v. Org. of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, 766 F.3d 74, 83 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Effecting 

service of process on counsel “erases any material doubt that [the defendant] will be provided 

with notice of the suit.” Huawei Techs. USA, Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 4:19-cv-229-ALMKPJ, 2019 

WL 3253674, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2019) (quoting WorldVentures, 2019 WL 6523306, at 

*14). 

The Court views NEC’s objection to alternative service as an attempt to further delay 

resolution of the lawsuits rather than as a method of ensuring NEC’s apprisal of the pending 

suits. This Court previously held that seeking to avoid unnecessary delay and expense in serving 

a foreign defendant through the Hague Convention is a valid reason to grant alternative service. 

6 See, e.g., Affinity, 2014 WL 11342502, at *1–4; RPost Holdings, Inc. v. Kagan, No. 2:11-cv-238-JRG, 2012 WL 

194388, at *2– 3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2012); WorldVentures Holdings, LLC v. Mavie, No. 4:18-cv-393, 2018 WL 

6523306, at *14 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2018); Canal Indem. Co. v. Castillo, No. DR-09-cv-43-AM-CW, 2011 WL 

13234740, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2011); Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Effect Alternative 

Service on Defendant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited at 4, STC.UNM v. Taiwan 

Semiconductor Mfg. Co. Ltd., No. 6:19-cv-00261-ADA (W.D. Tex. May 29, 2019), ECF No. 13. 

Case 6:20-cv-00096-ADA Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 7 of 9
8

Affinity, 2014 WL 11342502, at *4. Accordingly, the Court may grant leave to effect alternative 

service under Rule 4(f)(3) by any method that satisfies due process. To satisfy due process, the 

method of service must be “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.” Mullane, 339 U.S. 306, 314. Due process is satisfied when efforts at giving notice 

provide fundamental fairness by exhibiting a reasonable probability of actual notice. Id. at 317–

18. 

In this case, NEC “expressly objects to service of process [by email] and does not consent 

to the Court’s jurisdiction over it.” Def.’s Resp. 6. However, the due process inquiry is not 

concerned with whether NEC agrees with the Court’s designated method of alternative service.

The analysis considers whether NEC is reasonably certain to be informed of the pending lawsuits 

so that it can present its objections. In all likelihood, NEC is already aware of the pending 

actions and demands service pursuant to the Hague Convention as a means of creating a 

procedural hurdle to timely litigation. By effecting service of process on NEC’s known U.S. 

counsel, Mr. Gearing, who is representing NEC in contesting jurisdiction in this matter, NEC is 

reasonably certain to be apprised of the pending actions, if it is not already aware of them.

Case 6:20-cv-00096-ADA Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 8 of 9
9

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Terrestrial’s Motion for Leave to Effect 

Alternative Service on NEC should be and hereby is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED

that Terrestrial may effect service on NEC by sending the complaint and other required materials 

to NEC’s counsel, Mr. Brian Gearing at Crowell & Moring LLP, by email. Terrestrial must 

email Mr. Gearing at the same email listed in Mr. Gearing’s December 20, 2019 and April 22, 

2020 email signature block: BGearing@crowell.com. 

SIGNED this 24th day of June, 2020.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00096-ADA Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 9 of 9