United States District Court 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION 

FREEDOM PATENTS LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDING 

LIMITED F/K/A TCL MULTIMEDIA 

TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LTD., 

ET AL., 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

§

§ 

§ 

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00420 

Judge Mazzant 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Improper 

Service (Dkt. #24). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that 

the motion should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

BACKGROUND 

 On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff Freedom Patents LLC brought this lawsuit for patent 

infringement (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff brought the lawsuit against seven defendants: (1) TCL Electronics 

Holdings Limited f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd. (“TCL Electronics”) (Dkt. 

#1 ¶ 2); (2) TCL Technology Group Corporation f/k/a TCL Corp. (“TCL Technology”) (Dkt. 

#1 ¶ 4); (3) TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Company Limited (“TCL King”) (Dkt. 

#1 ¶ 6); (4) TCL MOKA International Limited (“TCL MOKA”) (Dkt #1 ¶ 8); (5) TCL Smart 

Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (“TCL Vietnam”) (Dkt. #1 ¶ 10); (6) TCT Mobile International 

Limited (“TCT Mobile”) (Dkt. #1 ¶ 12); and (7) Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. 

(“Huizhou TCL”) (Dkt. #1 ¶ 14) (collectively, the “Defendants”). Plaintiff characterizes the 

Defendants as “an interrelated group of companies which together comprise one of the world’s 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 431
2 

largest manufacturers of televisions and smartphones and one of the leading sellers of televisions 

and smartphones in the United States, including the TCL, Alcatel, and Samsung brands” (Dkt. #1 

¶ 16). 

The Defendants are located in three distinct geographic territories. TCL Electronics1, TCL 

MOKA, and TCT Mobile all have places of business in Hong Kong SAR (Dkt. #1, ¶¶ 2, 8, 12), so 

they collectively are the “Hong Kong Defendants.” TCL Technology, TCL King, and Huizhou 

TCL are entities organized and existing in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) (Dkt. #1, ¶¶ 

4, 6, 14), so they collectively are the “PRC Defendants.” TCL Vietnam is the only defendant 

organized and existing in Vietnam (Dkt. #1, ¶ 10). 

 On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff issued summons on all Defendants by serving process on the 

Texas Secretary of State (Dkts. ##5–11). On May 12, 2023, the Secretary of State was served as 

the designated agent of each of the Defendants (Dkts. ## 17–23). On June 6, 2023, the Secretary 

of State issued Certificates of Service to Plaintiff, noting the Secretary received “a copy of the 

Summons and Original Complaint For Patent Infringement” on May 12, 2023 and forwarded a 

copy to each of the Defendants on May 26, 2023 (Dkt. #25, Exhibits 4, 8–13). 

 On June 2, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for improper service (Dkt. 

#24). TCL Vietnam moved on the basis that it does not “engage[] in business” in Texas that would 

permit substituted service through the Texas Secretary of State (Dkt. #24 at p. 10). The Hong 

Kong Defendants and the PRC Defendants moved on the basis that Plaintiff’s attempt at service 

did not comport with the Hague Convention (see Dkt. #24 at p. 8). 

1

 TCL Electronics “is a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands” 

(Dkt. #1 ¶ 2). But because TCL Electronics maintains a place of business in Hong Kong SAR (Dkt. #1 ¶ 2), and TCL 

Electronics does not object to service in Hong Kong based on its existence under the laws of the Cayman Islands, the 

Court groups TCL Electronics with the other Hong Kong Defendants. 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 432
3 

As to TCL Vietnam, Plaintiff responded that it “plausibly allege[d] that TCL Vietnam does 

business in Texas” (Dkt. #25 at p. 6). As to the PRC and Hong Kong Defendants, Plaintiff 

responded that service on the Texas Secretary of State does not implicate the Hague Convention 

because service culminated in Texas and not abroad (Dkt. #25 at p. 11). And specifically as to the 

Hong Kong Defendants, Plaintiff responded that even if the Hague Convention is implicated by 

service on the Texas Secretary of State, the service was still effective because Hong Kong SAR 

does not object to service through postal channels (Dkt. #25 at p. 9). In the alternative, Plaintiff 

requested the Court allow it to serve Defendants through their U.S. counsel (Dkt. #25 at pp. 19–

23). 

LEGAL STANDARD 

I. Federal Rules 12(b)(5) and 4 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) provides that a party may file a motion to dismiss 

for insufficient service of process. A district court has “broad discretion to dismiss an action for 

ineffective service of process.” Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 645 (5th 

Cir. 1994). “[O]nce the validity of service of process has been contested, the plaintiff bears the 

burden of establishing its validity.” Carimi v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1346 

(5th Cir. 1992). 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) governs service of domestic and foreign corporations. 

Rule 4(h) allows for service of a foreign corporation either (1) “in a judicial district of the United 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 433
4 

States . . . ,” or (2) “at a place not within any judicial district of the United States . . . .” FED. R.

CIV. P. 4(h)(1)–(2). 

When exercising the first option, service within the United States, the plaintiff must serve 

the defendant 

(A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or 

(B) by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to an officer, a managing 

or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive 

service of process and—if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so 

requires—by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h)(1)(A)–(B). Rule 4(e)(1), in turn, states that “unless federal law provides 

otherwise,” an individual may be served “following state law for serving a summons in an action 

brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where 

service is made.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e)(1). 

When exercising the second option, service outside the United States, the plaintiff must 

serve the defendant “in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except 

personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i).” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h)(2). Under Rule 4(f), a plaintiff may 

serve a defendant “by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to 

give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial 

and Extrajudicial Documents.” FED.R.CIV.P. 4(f)(1). Rule 4(f)(2) provides for methods of service 

if “there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not 

specify other means . . . .” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(f)(2). 

Rule 4(f) also permits service “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, 

as the court orders.” FED.R.CIV. P. 4(f)(3). Service under the Hague Convention, set out in Rule 

(4)(f)(1), does not displace Rule (4)(f)(3). Nagravision SA v. Gotech Int’l Tech. Ltd., 882 F.3d 494, 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 434
5 

498 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting that the Hague Convention “does not displace” Rule 4(f)(3)). Nor is 

service under Rule (4)(f)(3) a “last resort” or a form of “extraordinary relief.” Viavi Sols. Inc. v. 

Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd., No. 2:21-CV-00378, 2022 WL 1271706, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 

2022). Rather, Rule 4(f)(3) provides that service on a foreign defendant is proper when it is 

effected through a “court ordered method that is not prohibited by international agreement and is 

reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to notify the defendant of the case and afford them 

an opportunity to present objections.” Viahart, L.L.C. v. GangPeng, No. 21-40166, 2022 WL 

445161, at *3 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2022) (citing Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co, 339 U.S. 306, 

314 (1950)). 

Courts typically order service under Rule 4(f)(3) after considering the delay and expense 

associated with conventional means of service and any special circumstances that justify court 

intervention. Viavi, 2022 WL 1271706, at *2. In determining whether alternative service is 

appropriate under Rule 4(f)(3), courts enjoy “broad discretion.” Id.

II. Substitute Service under Texas Law 

Texas law provides for substituted service on the Secretary of State for nonresidents who 

engage in business in Texas but have neither a regular place of business nor a designated agent: 

The secretary of state is an agent for service of process on a nonresident who 

engages in business in this state, but does not maintain a regular place of business 

in this state or a designated agent for service of process, in any proceeding that 

arises out of the business done in this state and to which the nonresident is a party. 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.044(b). The term “nonresident” includes foreign 

corporations. Id. § 17.041. Texas law also dictates what the Secretary of State does after service: 

If the secretary of state is served with duplicate copies of process for a nonresident, 

the documents shall contain a statement of the name and address of the 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 435
6 

nonresident’s home or home office and the secretary of state shall immediately mail 

a copy of the process to the nonresident at the address provided. 

Id. § 17.045(a). 

ANALYSIS 

I. TCL Vietnam 

First, the Court decides the motion as to TCL Vietnam. The Court finds that TCL Vietnam 

was properly served and therefore denies TCL Vietnam’s motion. 

Texas law provides for substituted service on the Secretary of State for nonresidents who 

engage in business in Texas but have no regular place of business and have not designated an agent. 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.044(b). 

Plaintiff and Defendants seem to agree that if TCL Vietnam “engages in business” in 

Texas, then service of TCL Vietnam proper under the Texas law (Dkt. #24 at p. 10 (“Service of a 

nonresident defendant like TCL Vietnam through the Texas Secretary of State is only permissible 

if that nonresident defendant ‘engages in business’ in Texas.”); Dkt. #25 at p. 6 (“Defendants do 

not dispute that in some cases Texas law makes the Secretary of State an agent for service of 

process on a nonresident who does business in Texas.”)). The parties dispute whether TCL 

Vietnam “engages in business” within the understanding of Texas law. 

The Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code contains several acts that constitute doing 

business in Texas, not limited to but including “commit[ing] a tort a whole or in part in this state.” 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.042(2). “[S]ince patent infringement is a tort, the sale of [a 

foreign defendant’s] infringing products in Texas is sufficient evidence that [the foreign 

defendant] was ‘doing business’ under the Texas service statute, and thus sufficient evidence to 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 436
7 

meet the service provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(A).” ATEN Int’l Co. Ltd. 

v. Emine Tech. Co., Ltd., 261 F.R.D. 112, 121 (E.D. Tex. 2009). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently established the validity of its service on TCL 

Vietnam. The Court finds the facts in this case very similar to the facts in ATEN. There, a 

Taiwanese company manufactured products abroad, and then proceeded to sell those products to 

an American company. See id. at 119. That American company, in turn, imported those products 

to the United States. See id. The Taiwanese company moved to dismiss for improper service of 

process. Id. at 121. Even though the Taiwanese company did not itself import and sell the alleged 

infringing products in the United States, the court found “the sale of [the Taiwanese company’s] 

infringing products in Texas [was] sufficient evidence that [the Taiwanese company] was ‘doing 

business’ under the Texas service statute . . . .” Id. 

Plaintiff sufficiently established that under Texas’s service statute, TCL Vietnam “does 

business” in Texas. Plaintiff submitted evidence that TCL Vietnam planned, at least in part, to sell 

its products in the United States (Dkt. #25, Exhibit 5 at p. 1 (“The integrated manufacturing base 

will supply products to both the Vietnam market and other overseas markets, including . . . the 

U.S.”)). Plaintiff also submitted evidence that one of the accused products is shipped by TCL 

Vietnam to the United States (Dkt. #25, Exhibit 6 at p. 2) and is sold in Texas (Dkt. #25, Exhibit 7 

at p. 1). TCL Vietnam replies to this evidence by calling Plaintiff’s allegations “implausible on 

their face” because TCL Vietnam “has no employees or facilities in the United States” and 

therefore “cannot possibly make or use any product [in the United States]” (Dkt. #26 at p. 7). But 

this does not rebut Plaintiff’s evidence that TCL Vietnam’s products are in fact sold in Texas to 

constitute “doing business” in Texas. 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 437
8 

TCL Vietnam also argues that the cargo designation of “‘FOB HCM’ (freight-on-board, 

Ho Chi Minh City)” means TCL Vietnam has no sales in the United States or Texas (Dkt. #26 at 

p. 7), but the Court is not persuaded by this argument. The court in ATEN addressed FOB 

shipments in the personal jurisdiction context. The Taiwanese defendant delivered its products 

“to a shipping company in Taiwan, [and it] shipped to its customers using free-on-board (FOB)2

shipping terms . . . .” ATEN, 261 F.R.D. at 119. There, the court found that the relevant inquiry 

for personal jurisdiction was “whether [the Taiwanese defendant] purposefully direct[ed] its 

products toward the Texas market and not whether it retain[ed] legal title to the products in the event 

of loss.” Id. at 120 (emphasis added). Likewise, here the relevant inquiry is whether TCL Vietnam’s 

activities amount to doing business in Texas, which the Court has found they do. Therefore, the 

Court finds that TCL Vietnam was properly served and denies the motion as to TCL Vietnam.

II. The PRC and Hong Kong Defendants 

Next, the Court decides the motion as to the PRC Defendants and Hong Kong Defendants. 

The first issue is whether the Hague Convention is implicated by the transmission of documents 

to the PRC and Hong Kong SAR. The second issue is whether Plaintiff established that its attempt 

at service comports with accepted service in the PRC and Hong Kong.3

 

A. Whether the Hague Convention is Implicated by International Transmission 

of Documents 

2

 The terms “freight-on-board” (Dkt. #26 at p. 7) and “free-on-board” (ATEN, 261 F.R.D. at 119) refer to the same 

type of shipping. See, e.g., Soto v. Meadow Mills, Inc., No. 3:09CV292-HEH, 2009 WL 1873785, at *3 (E.D. Va. June 

29, 2009). 

3

 In their reply, the PRC Defendants and Hong Kong Defendants made arguments denying doing business in Texas 

(Dkt. #26 at pp. 3, 6). However, those arguments were not raised in Defendants’ Motion, so the Court considers them 

waived. Bavely, Trustee of AAA Sports, Inc. v. Panini America, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-093, 2022 WL 19076610, at *4 n.2 (E.D. 

Tex. Oct. 19, 2022). Accordingly, the Court will only address the grounds for dismissal addressed in Defendants’ 

Motion. 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 438
9 

The parties dispute whether the Secretary of State’s transmission of service documents 

from Texas to the PRC Defendants and Hong Kong Defendants implicates the Hague Convention. 

Defendants argue that it does, claiming that “Texas courts have consistently held that service via 

the Texas Secretary of State is improper where the defendant company is in a country that does 

not affirmatively authorize service of process by mail” (Dkt. #24 at p. 8). Defendants point to 

multiple cases in Texas, including two from this district (Dkt. #24 at p. 8 (citing Macrosolve, Inc. v. 

Antenna Software, Inc., No. 6:11-CV-287, 2012 WL 12903085, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2012)); 

Dkt. #24 at p. 9 (citing Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Nokia Sols. & Networks US LLC, 2:18-cv-00412-

RWS-RSP, 2019 WL 8137134, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2019))). In response, Plaintiff asserts that 

“substituted service through the Texas Secretary of State does not implicate the Hague 

Convention” because “[s]ubstituted service on the Secretary of State is domestic service,” that 

the Convention only applies to “transmissions culminating in service abroad” (Dkt. #25 at pp. 9, 

11). Plaintiff believes that “service is complete upon service on the Secretary of State, even if the 

nonresident defendant never receives a forwarded copy of the service documents” (Dkt. #25 at p. 

14). 

After review of the applicable law, the Court finds that when a signatory to the Hague 

Convention is served through the Texas Secretary of State, the Hague Convention is implicated. 

First, the statutory provisions allowing Plaintiff to serve the Texas Secretary of State require the 

Secretary of State to “send notice of the complaint to the nonresident.” Macrosolve, 2012 WL 

12903085, at *2 (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.045(a) and 1. TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 

71.21); see ACQIS LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., 572 F. Supp. 3d 291, 301 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (“This 

Court reads the Texas service statutes to require the Secretary of State to mail the service to the 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 439
10 

foreign entity, for which it is an involuntary agent, implicating the Hague Service Convention.”) 

(citing TEX.CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE §§ 17.044–17.045). And the Certificates of Service issued by 

the Secretary of State to Plaintiff include the address of the nonresident defendant where the 

Secretary sent the Summons and Original Complaint (Dkt. #25, Exhibits 8–13). 

Further, this Court agrees with the court in ACQIS that “it would be absurd to find that 

any communications between the secretary of state and [a] foreign defendant are irrelevant after the 

secretary of state received process.” 572 F. Supp. 3d at 301 (citing Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft 

v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 707 (1988)). Courts require plaintiffs to comport with service 

requirements because defendants deserve due process when served. See Ultravision Techs., LLC v. 

Govision, LLC, 2020 WL 10692985, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2020) (“To satisfy due process 

requirements, service must provide ‘notice [that is] reasonably calculated, under all 

circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them the 

opportunity to present their objections.”). The court in ACQIS noted that the mailing of the notice 

of service to the foreign defendant, the “final action” in the chain of events, completes the 

demands of the Due Process Clause: 

Under Texas Law, the Secretary of State is required to immediately mail a copy of 

the notice of service to the foreign entity, affording the defendant its due process. 

Absent that final action, as dictated by the statute, a defendant would be unaware of the 

action against it. Such a proposition cannot meet the demands of the Due Process 

Clause, given these facts. 

ACQIS, 572 F. Supp. 3d at 302 (emphasis added). So because the actual mailing of the notice is 

both dictated by the Texas service statute and completes the demands of Due Process, the Court 

finds the international transmission of those documents implicates the Hague Convention.

B. Whether Plaintiff’s Substituted Service Comports with Accepted Service 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 440
11 

Because the Court finds the international transmission of service documents by the Texas 

Secretary of State implicates the Hague Convention, the Court moves to the next inquiry: whether 

service by mail is permitted by either of the Hague signatories at issue (the PRC and Hong Kong). 

If either of the signatories permits service by mail, Plaintiff’s substituted service through the Texas 

Secretary of State is acceptable as to the defendants located within the signatory.

1. Hong Kong Defendants 

After review, the Court finds that service of the Hong Kong Defendants through the Texas 

Secretary of State is permissible. While the Hong Kong SAR is a signatory to the Hague 

Convention, it permits service by mail (Dkt. #25, Exhibit 14 at p. 3). In their Motion, Defendants 

stated “service of process by mail is not allowed in . . . the Hong Kong SAR” (Dkt. #24 at p. 9). 

This is false. “Hong Kong has not made ‘any reservations with respect to service by international 

registered mail or service by agent.’” Stingray IP Sols., LLC v. TP-Link Techs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:21-

CV-00045-JRG, 2021 WL 6773096, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2021); see also CMA CGM S.A. v. 

Ocean Line Logistics Inc., No. 2:20-cv-06210-FWS-RAO, 2022 WL 3009461, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 

3, 2022) (“Service by mail is not prohibited by the Hague Convention and is explicitly permitted 

under Hong Kong law.”). Plaintiff has provided evidence that the Hong Kong Defendants have 

been served by mail through the Texas Secretary of State (Dkt. #25, Exhibit 8 at p. 2; Dkt. #25, 

Exhibit 11 at p. 2; Dkt. #25, Exhibit 12 at p. 2). Therefore, Plaintiff properly served the Hong Kong 

Defendants, and Defendants’ Motion is denied as to the Hong Kong Defendants. 

2. PRC Defendants 

After review, the Court finds that service of the PRC Defendants through the Texas 

Secretary of State is not permissible. The PRC is signatory to the Hague Convention, and it 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 441
12 

expressly objects to service by mail (Dkt. #24, Exhibit 2 at p. 2; ACQIS, 572 F. Supp. 3d at 300). 

So the mail delivered abroad “does not impact the instant case because [the PRC] ha[s] objected 

to service by mail.” ACQIS, 572 F. Supp. 3d at 300. Therefore, the Court grants without prejudice 

Defendants’ Motion as to the PRC Defendants. 

III. Alternative Service of PRC Defendants 

Now that the Court has determined service through the Texas Secretary of State was 

improper as to the PRC Defendants, it must now decide whether it will grant Plaintiff’s request for 

alternative relief. In its Response, Plaintiff requested in the alternative that the Court allow it to 

serve the PRC Defendants through their U.S. counsel (Dkt. #25 at p. 19). 

In evaluating whether service via the PRC Defendants’ U.S. counsel is proper here, the 

Court must determine whether such service is “prohibited by international agreement” and 

whether it is reasonably calculated to notify the PRC Defendants of the case and to afford them an 

opportunity to present objections. See Viahart, 2022 WL 445161, at *3. The Court finds that 

Plaintiff’s request passes muster on both prongs of this analysis, and, as a result, it will grant 

Plaintiff’s request. 

First, “the Hague Convention does not prohibit service on a foreign corporation through 

its U.S. counsel . . . .” WSOU Invs. LLC v. OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 6-20-cv-00952-

ADA, 2021 WL 2870679, at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 8, 2021). So service on the PRC Defendants’ U.S. 

counsel is not prohibited by international agreement. See Viahart, 2022 WL 445161, at *3. 

Second, the Court finds that service through the PRC Defendants’ U.S. counsel is 

reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to provide them with notice of this suit. See id.

The Court has already found that TCL Vietnam and the Hong Kong Defendants have been 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 442
13 

properly served through the Texas Secretary of State. The Court also notes that Defendants’ U.S. 

counsel in this particular case has previously accepted service for one of the PRC Defendants, TCL 

Technology, in another matter in this district. See Apex Beam Techs. LLC v. TCT Mobile Int’l Ltd., 

No. 2:21-cv-00438-JRG, Dkt. #24, Minute Entry entered on July 19, 2023 at 9:24 AM (“Mr. 

McPhail agreed to accept service of process on behalf of Defendants.”). The Court therefore finds, 

in light of the circumstances and the facts of this case, that service of the PRC Defendants through 

their U.S. counsel is “reasonably calculated . . . to notify the [PRC Defendants] of the case and 

afford them an opportunity to present objections.” Viahart, 2022 WL 445161, at *3. 

The Court therefore grants Plaintiff’s request for alternative service pursuant to Rule 

4(f)(3). Plaintiff is ordered to serve the PRC Defendants’ U.S. counsel within 14 days of this order. 

CONCLUSION 

 It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for 

Improper Service (Dkt. #24) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is 

DENIED as to the Hong Kong Defendants, and DENIED as to TCL Vietnam. The Motion is 

GRANTED as to the PRC Defendants, and Plaintiff’s claims against the PRC Defendants are 

hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed not to terminate the PRC 

Defendants unless alternative service as directed by the following paragraph is not executed. 

It is also ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for alternative service pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) 

on the PRC Defendant’s U.S. Counsel (Dkt. #25 at pp. 19–23) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered 

to serve the PRC Defendants’ U.S. counsel within 14 days of this order if it wishes to bring its 

claims against the PRC Defendants. 

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 443
14 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cv-00420-ALM Document 43 Filed 11/09/23 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 444