1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY 

TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LENOVO GROUP LIMITED,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY TECHNOLOGIES INC.’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LETTER ROGATORY TO REQUEST THE 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.

(TAIWAN)

Plaintiff Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. (“UCT”) hereby requests that the Court

issue a Letter Rogatory for international judicial assistance (the “Letter Rogatory”) seeking

assistance from the Courts of Taiwan to require Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (“Realtek”), located 

at No. 2, Innovation Road II, Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan, to produce documents, 

as specified in Exhibit A. Defendant Lenovo Group Limited (“Lenovo”) does not oppose UCT’s 

motion.

The issuance of this Letter Rogatory is necessary because the requested information is 

relevant to UCT’s claims, Lenovo’s defenses, and damages. Realtek is a supplier of components 

that are involved in the accused functionality in Lenovo’s accused products. Realtek thus has

unique information relevant to the operation of the accused products. UCT requests that the Court 

grant this motion and issue the Letter Rogatory.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Case 2:23-cv-00449-JRG Document 63 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1151
2

UCT alleges that Lenovo infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,154,905 (“the ’905 Patent”),

7,187,307 (“the ’307 Patent”), 7,746,798 (“the ’798 Patent”), 9,232,265 (“the ’265 Patent”),

8,680,712 (“the ’712 Patent”), 7,856,520 (“the ’520 Patent”), 7,921,231 (“the ’231 Patent”), and

9,852,103 (“the ’103 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). Specifically, UCT alleges that 

Lenovo products (computers, monitors, and docking stations) that support certain USB, PCIe and 

DisplayPort standards infringe the patents-in-suit. Dkt. No. 1.

Efforts to Obtain Discovery From Realtek. UCT attempted to serve Realtek with a 

subpoena at No. 2, Innovation Road II, Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan, R.O.C. on 

October 23, 2024 at 9:04 am by serving Ms. Myung Li, the person designated to accept service on 

behalf of Realtek Semiconductor Corp., but Ms. Li refused to accept service. 

ARGUMENT

I. A LETTER ROGATORY IS A PROPER METHOD FOR A U.S. COURT TO 

SEEK DISCOVERY IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION

A letter rogatory is a formal written request sent by a court to a foreign court asking that a 

witness residing within that foreign court’s jurisdiction either provide documents, a deposition, or 

both for use in a pending action before the requesting court. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro 

Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 n.1 (2004); Rockstar Consortium US LP v. Google Inc., No. 2:13-

cv-00893-JRG-RSP, Dkt No. 125 (granting motion for issuance of letter rogatory for various 

Canadian entities) (E.D. Tex., Aug. 14, 2014); Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. 11–02709, 

2012 WL 1808849, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2012) (granting motion for issuance of letters 

rogatory seeking discovery from an entity in Taiwan); 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, 

& Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2083 (3d ed. 2007). The decision to issue 

such a letter is within the Court’s discretion, U.S. v. Mason, No. 89-5675, 1990 WL 185894, at *2 

(4th Cir. Nov. 29, 1990), and the proper inquiry for issuance is whether the discovery sought 

Case 2:23-cv-00449-JRG Document 63 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1152
3

complies with the liberal standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. DBMS Consultants Ltd.

v. Comp. Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 131 F.R.D. 367, 369 (D. Mass. 1990).

This Court “has the inherent authority” to issue letters of request for evidence to foreign 

tribunals. SEC v. Leslie, No. 07-03444, 2009 WL 688836, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2009); Uniloc 

2017 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00553-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 112 (E.D. Tex. Nov 22, 2019)

(issuing Request for International Judicial Assistance for the purposes of obtaining documents and 

testimony from a Korean entity); see also Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the 

United States § 474(2) (“A United States district court, in order to obtain evidence for use in a 

proceeding before it, may . . . issue a letter rogatory requesting a court or other appropriate

authority in a foreign state to direct the taking of evidence in that state . . . provided the procedure 

is not inconsistent with the law of the state where the evidence is to be taken.”).

II. A LETTER ROGATORY IS APPROPRIATE UNDER TAIWANESE LAW

The Letter Rogatory is an appropriate method of obtaining discovery of testimony from 

Realtek. Judicial assistance between the United States and Taiwan is governed by Article 5 of the 

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. See U.S. Dep’t of State Legal Considerations for 

Japan; see also Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), available at 

http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english /conventions/9_2_1963.pdf (last visited Nov. 22,

2024) (the “Convention”). Article 5(j) of the Convention acknowledges that the use of Letters 

Rogatory is an appropriate method of requesting evidence located in a foreign State. See Vienna 

Convention on Consular Relations (1963). Because Realtek is based in Taiwan, and Taiwan is not

a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Criminal 

Matters, parties in the United States use letters rogatory to seek discovery from Taiwanese entities. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (authorizing courts to issue all writs necessary or 

appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of 

Case 2:23-cv-00449-JRG Document 63 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1153
4

law); 28 U.S.C. § 1781 (permitting “the transmittal of a letter rogatory or request directly from a 

tribunal in the United States to the foreign or international tribunal, officer, or agency to whom it 

is addressed and its return in the same manner.”).

III. UCT SEEKS RELEVANT DISCOVERY FROM REALTEK VIA THE 

PROPOSED LETTER ROGATORY

The documents that UCT requests from Realtek are highly relevant to UCT’s infringement 

claims, Lenovo’s defenses, and alleged damages. They are directed at fundamental issues of the 

structure and operation of the Realtek components incorporated in the accused Lenovo products. 

Lenovo has identified the specific model numbers of relevant Realtek components in response to 

UCT’s interrogatories.

Accordingly, the discovery sought from Realtek is at least relevant to the infringement 

issues. UCT’s narrowly-tailored requests for production of documents by Realtek are important 

to understanding the structure and operation of the Realtek components. UCT has no other 

reasonable method of obtaining this discovery relating to the Realtek components.

The documents sought by UCT from Realtek are not available except by resort to the 

Letter Rogatory. Realtek is not a party to this litigation or otherwise subject to this Court’s 

authority. Therefore, obtaining the Letter Rogatory is the only viable channel for UCT to obtain

this highly relevant information.

Accordingly, UCT requests that this Court grant this Unopposed Motion, endorse the 

attached Letter Rogatory, and direct the Clerk to place the Court’s seal upon it and return it to 

counsel for UCT for delivery to the Central Authority in Taiwan.

Case 2:23-cv-00449-JRG Document 63 Filed 12/03/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1154
5

Dated: December 3, 2024

 

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Brett Cooper 

Brett E. Cooper (NY SBN 4011011)

bcooper@bc-lawgroup.com 

Seth R. Hasenour (TX SBN 24059910)

shasenour@bc-lawgroup.com 

Jonathan Yim (TX SBN 24066317)

jyim@bc-lawgroup.com 

Drew B. Hollander (NY SBN 5378096)

dhollander@bc-lawgroup.com

Ashley M. Ratycz (IL SBN 6330321)

aratycz@bclgpc.com

BC LAW GROUP, P.C.

200 Madison Avenue, 24h Floor

New York, NY 10016

Telephone: (212) 951-0100

Attorneys for Universal Connectivity 

Technologies Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00449-JRG Document 63 Filed 12/03/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1155
6

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The Parties have complied with the meet and confer requirement and the motion is 

submitted as unopposed. 

/s/ Brett Cooper

Brett Cooper

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that this document is being served upon counsel of record on December 3, 2024 

via electronic service.

/s/ Brett Cooper

 Brett Cooper

Case 2:23-cv-00449-JRG Document 63 Filed 12/03/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1156