IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

LONGITUDE LICENSING LIMITED, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD., 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO.2:23-CV-00515-JRG-RSP 

DEFENDANT BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR

QUASH BASED ON INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 320
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 

II. Background ..........................................................................................................................1 

III. Legal Standard .....................................................................................................................2 

IV. Longitude’s Attempted Service on BOE Was Deficient.............................................4 

A. Longitude Did Not Directly Serve BOE via the Hague Convention ...................... 5 

B. Longitude Did Not Move for Leave to Effect Alternative Service ........................ 5 

C. Longitude Did Not Indirectly Serve BOE .............................................................. 6 

D. Longitude’s Mistaken View of Case Law ............................................................ 11 

V. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................12 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 321
iii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Federal Cases 

Arigna Tech. Ltd. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, 

No. 2:21-cv-173-JRG, 2023 WL 6606722 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2023) ........................................8 

Arigna Tech. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, 

No. 2:21-cv-172-JRG, Dkt. No. 168 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2022) ..................................3, 8, 9, 10 

Atlas Global Techs. LLC v. TP-Link Techs. Co., Ltd., 

No. 2:21-cv-430-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 21 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2022) ..........................................6 

Atlas Global Techs. LLC v. TP-Link Techs. Co., Ltd., 

No. 2:21-cv-430-JRG-RSP, 2022 WL 18584501 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2022) ...........................7 

Blue Spike, LLC v. ASUS Computer Int’l, Inc., 

No. 6:16-cv-1384-RWS-KNM, 2018 WL 3301705 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2018) ........................4 

Carimi v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 

959 F.2d 1344 (5th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................3 

Element Capital Com. Co. v. BOE Tech. Grp. Co., 

No. 2:22-cv-118-JRG, 2022 WL 4368162 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2022) ..................................4, 6 

Gravely Motor Plow & Cultivator Co. v. H. V. Carter Co., 

193 F.2d 158 (9th Cir. 1951) .....................................................................................................4 

Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., 

2010 WL 2605195 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2010) ...........................................................................9 

Jim Fox Enters., Inc. v. Air France, 

664 F.2d 63 (5th Cir. 1981) .....................................................................................................12 

Jones v. James Trading Co. Ltd., 

2019 WL 6354392 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2019) .............................................................................11 

Lisson v. ING Groep N.V., 

262 Fed. App’x 567 (5th Cir. 2007) ..........................................................................................4

Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, 

526 U.S. 344 (1999) ...................................................................................................................3 

Network Sys. Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 

No. 2:22-cv-481-JRG, Dkt. No. 32 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2023) ...................................................5 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 322
iv 

Nuance Comm’cs, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 

626 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................4 

Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp., U.S.A., 

891 F.2d 533 (5th Cir. 1990) .....................................................................................................3 

SKC Kolon PI, Inc. v. Kaneka Corp., 

2010 WL 11553177 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2010) .......................................................................11 

Special Indus., Inc. v. Zamil Grp. Holding, Co., 

578 Fed. App’x 325 (5th Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................4

Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. Hisense Co., Ltd., 

No. 2:21-cv-262-JRG, 2023 WL 1992566 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2023) ....................................12 

Volkswagenwek Aktiengesellshaft v. Schlunk, 

486 U.S. 694 (1988) ...............................................................................................................3, 5 

State Cases 

Cosper v. Smith & Wesson Arms Co., 

346 P.2d 409 (Cal. 1959) .....................................................................................................8, 10 

Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 

94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) .................................................................................9 

State Statutes 

Cal. Corp. Code § 2110..............................................................................................................7, 11 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10 ..................................................................................7 

Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. §§ 5.201, 5.251-5.255 ......................................................................3, 6 

Rules 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 ..................................................................................................................... passim

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)................................................................................................................1, 2 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 323
STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT 

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE CV-7(A)(1) 

1. Whether the Court should dismiss this patent case under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process because Plaintiff Longitude Licensing 

Limited failed to serve Defendant BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., a foreign company, pursuant 

to the Hague Convention, and did not request leave to effect service by alternative means. 

2. Alternatively, whether the Court should quash Longitude’s improper service 

attempt on an entity Longitude has not shown to be the registered agent of a domestic subsidiary 

of BOE. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 324
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Defendant BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (“BOE”) respectfully requests dismissal of 

this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process, 

or, alternatively, to quash the service of summons. Despite this Court having recognized in other 

cases that a foreign entity like BOE should be served via the Hague Convention, Plaintiff 

Longitude Licensing Limited (“Longitude”) claims that it validly served BOE via its “general 

manager” in California by delivering a summons on the former registered agent of non-party BOE 

Technology America, Inc. (“BOEA”) without moving to effectuate service by alternative means. 

Such service is improper. The Court should reject Longitude’s attempts to circumvent service law. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Longitude filed its Complaint in this action on November 8, 2023, naming BOE 

Technology Group Co., Ltd. (Dkt. No. 1.) Longitude alleges in the Complaint that BOE is a 

company organized and existing under the laws of China, having a principal place of business at 

No. 12, Xihuanzhong Road, BDA, Beijing, 100176, China. (Id. at ¶ 6.) On November 30, 2023, 

Longitude filed a return of executed service of summons purportedly on the registered agent of 

non-party BOE Technology America, Inc. (“BOEA”). (Dkt. No. 11.) On December 14, 2023, the 

summons in this case was reissued to list “BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. 12 Xihuanzhong Rd, 

BDA, Beijing, 100176, P.R. China.” (Dkt. No. 12.) 

BOE has no registered agent for service of process in Texas, California, or anywhere in the 

U.S., and is not required to designate one. BOE does not have any managing agents located in the 

State of Texas or California. Li Decl. at ¶¶ 6-7. BOE does not maintain an office or mailing 

address in the State of Texas or California, and does not own real property there. Id. BOE has not 

filed or been obligated to file a tax return or pay taxes in the State of Texas or California. Id. BOE 

does not have any bank accounts or other assets in the State of Texas or California. Id. BOE has 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 325
2 

not authorized or appointed any entity to act as its agent for accepting service of process of lawsuits 

in the State of Texas or California. Id. 

BOE does have ownership interests in a number of subsidiaries, which engage in business 

activities in different parts of the world, including the U.S. Id. at ¶ 8. For example, BOE has 

ownership interest in various intermediate companies, one of which owns BOEA. BOEA is 

incorporated in California and has its principal place of business at 2350 Mission College Blvd., 

Ste. 840, Santa Clara, CA 95054. Id. BOEA’s registered agent is CSC Global, which has an office 

address at 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 150N, Sacramento, CA 95833. Gu Decl. at ¶ 6. 

BOEA is a small company with a few dozen employees in the U.S., including its CEO and 

directors. BOEA’s main business is to provide technical and pre-sale service to U.S. customers of 

BOE. Id. at ¶ 8. 

BOE does not direct or control the day-to-day operations or management of BOEA. Id. at 

¶ 7; see also Li Decl. at ¶ 9. Rather, the day-to-day business management and financial operations 

of BOEA and BOE are directed and controlled by each company’s own managers. Gu Decl. at 

¶ 7. BOEA and BOE have their own CEO and Board of Directors, who bear overall responsibility 

for management and governance of the respective companies. Id. BOEA and one of BOE’s nonU.S. subsidiaries have entered into a service contract providing that BOEA may perform certain 

sales services according to a defined policy. Id. All sales contracts and product orders (“POs”), 

however, are negotiated and signed not with BOEA, but with BOE or another intermediate entity. 

Li Decl. at 9. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) allows a party to challenge service of process if 

that service does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). 

Absent service, a court “ordinarily may not exercise power over a party the complaint names as a 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 326
3 

defendant.” Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999). Once a defendant 

has challenged service, plaintiff bears the burden to establish a showing of proper service to avoid 

dismissal. Carimi v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1346 (5th Cir. 1992). 

The Federal Rules set forth the requirements for serving a corporation, and they draw a 

distinction between domestic and foreign service. Namely, Rule 4(h) contemplates two scenarios: 

service on a foreign corporation made (1) at a place within a judicial district of the United States; 

or (2) at a place outside the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)-(2). Arigna Tech. v. Bayerische 

Motoren Werke AG, No. 2:21-cv-172-JRG, Dkt. No. 168 at 6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2022) (“Arigna

-172”). 

In the former scenario, domestic service can be executed “in the manner prescribed by Rule 

4(e)(1) for serving an individual,” or by delivering a copy of the summons “to an officer, a 

managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized . . . to receive service of process.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). Rule 4(e)(1) authorizes service when the plaintiff “follow[s] 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.” Under the law of Texas, where this District 

Court is located, a corporation may be served through the corporation’s registered agent, president, 

or vice president, or, if the corporation does business in the state and fails to maintain a registered 

agent, a plaintiff may serve the Texas Secretary of State instead. See Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. 

§§ 5.201, 5.251-5.255. 

In the latter scenario, under Rule 4(h)(2), service on a foreign corporation may be made 

directly on that corporation outside the U.S. “in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an 

individual, except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i).” Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp., U.S.A., 

891 F.2d 533, 537 (5th Cir. 1990); Volkswagenwek Aktiengesellshaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 327
4 

(1988). As this Court has found, the Court may authorize alterative service under Rule 4(f)(3) “by 

other means not prohibited by international agreement,” but the Court must be mindful that the 

Rule “was not meant to displace the other rules for service in every instance in which alternative 

means of service are seen as more convenient.” Element Capital Com. Co. v. BOE Tech. Grp. Co., 

No. 2:22-cv-118-JRG, Dkt. No. 10 at 3, 2022 WL 4368162, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2022) 

(quoting Nuance Comm’cs, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). 

Some courts in this District find it useful to distinguish between direct service, such as that 

described above, and indirect service. See Blue Spike, LLC v. ASUS Computer Int’l, Inc., No. 

6:16-cv-1384-RWS-KNM, Dkt. No. 37, 2018 WL 3301705, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2018). In 

some narrow circumstances, indirect service via a domestic subsidiary may be appropriate, for 

example, when the foreign defendant has “actually authorized the subsidiary to accept service of 

process on its behalf,” or if “the relationship between the subsidiary and parent is such that they 

are in reality the same corporation.” Lisson v. ING Groep N.V., 262 Fed. App’x 567, 569 (5th Cir. 

2007); Special Indus., Inc. v. Zamil Grp. Holding, Co., 578 Fed. App’x 325, 332 (5th Cir. 2014). 

As is widely recognized (in this Circuit and others), an entity’s status as a subsidiary does not 

automatically confer the legal ability to accept service of process on behalf of a foreign parent. 

Lisson, 262 Fed. App’x at 570; see also Gravely Motor Plow & Cultivator Co. v. H. V. Carter Co., 

193 F.2d 158, 161 (9th Cir. 1951). 

IV. LONGITUDE’S ATTEMPTED SERVICE ON BOE WAS DEFICIENT 

This Court lacks jurisdiction over BOE because BOE was not properly served with the 

Complaint. Longitude has not achieved service either directly or indirectly, nor has Longitude 

even bothered to move for leave to effect alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3). Instead, Longitude 

opted to short-circuit this Court’s typical procedure by attempting to serve non-party BOEA in 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 328
5 

California without requesting leave to do so. Even then, however, it failed to serve BOEA properly 

because it delivered the summons and Complaint to the wrong registered agent. 

A. Longitude Did Not Directly Serve BOE via the Hague Convention 

Rule 4(h), by reference to Rule 4(f), requires that service upon a foreign corporation be 

effected by internationally agreed means reasonably calculated to give notice, such as that 

authorized by the Hague Convention. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f). The Supreme Court has made clear 

that the Hague Convention applies where service of process requires transmission of documents 

internationally. Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 699. Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that in all 

cases in which the Hague Convention applies, the Supremacy Clause preempts inconsistent 

methods of service. Id. If the foreign country in which service is to take place is a signatory to 

the Hague Convention (such as China), that agreement controls. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1). 

Here, Longitude has not shown that it served BOE through the Hague Convention, nor 

even attempted to do so. Ex. A (A. Fahrenkrog message of 12/13/2023). 

B. Longitude Did Not Move for Leave to Effect Alternative Service 

Not only has Longitude failed to serve BOE by formal means, such as through the Hague 

Convention, it failed to move for leave to effect alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3). Longitude 

made no other attempts to serve BOE under normal channels and instead resorted immediately to 

attempting service on non-party BOEA. 

As this Court has found, failure to request leave to effect service on a U.S. subsidiary of a 

foreign entity can doom an attempt that might have otherwise been proper had the Court granted 

leave to do so. Network Sys. Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-481-JRG, Dkt. 

No. 32 at 4 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2023) (rejecting plaintiff’s request to perfect service upon a U.S. 

subsidiary when “Plaintiff has not attempted to secure formal service on Lenovo under the Hague 

Convention.”). 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 329
6 

This Court has expressed disapproval for a plaintiff “attempting to bypass formal service 

under the Hague Convention” in previous cases where BOE was a defendant. Element Capital, 

2022 WL 4368162, at *3. In Element Capital, the Court also noted that “delay associated with 

service through the Hague Convention alone” is not enough to justify a grant of alternative service. 

Id. at *3 n.1. Further, beyond delay and expense, the Court typically looks to a plaintiff’s efforts 

in attempting to effectuate service by other means before determining whether service on a 

domestic subsidiary is appropriate. See Atlas Global Techs. LLC v. TP-Link Techs. Co., Ltd., No. 

2:21-cv-430-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 21 at 6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2022) (noting plaintiff’s “multiple 

attempts” to effectuate service that were thwarted by defendant). Here, Longitude has cited no 

delay or expense, nor can it because Longitude chose to do precisely what this Court ordinarily 

disapproves of: it bypassed formal service and immediately attempted service on a non-party, 

without asking for leave. The Court should not countenance Longitude’s attempt to circumvent 

the normal practice in this Court. 

C. Longitude Did Not Indirectly Serve BOE 

Longitude claims that it validly served BOE via a U.S. subsidiary, BOEA, by personally 

delivering the summons and Complaint to “Jane Doe - Authrorized [sic] to Accept/Person in 

Charge” at “5681 Beach Blvd Ste 200 Buena Park, CA 90621.” (Dkt. No. 11.) However, 

Longitude’s attempt does not constitute indirect service on BOE. Nor does it constitute service on 

BOEA because at the time of attempted service (Nov. 30, 2023), BOEA had designated its 

registered agent as CSC Global in Sacramento, not Yohan Lee in Buena Park. 

Longitude did not serve BOE’s registered agent, president, or vice president, as required 

by Texas law. Longitude also has not shown that it served the Texas Secretary of State. Tex. Bus. 

Orgs. Code Ann. §§ 5.201, 5.251-5.255. 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 330
7 

The location where Longitude did attempt service, “5681 Beach Blvd” in Buena Park, 

California, is an office building housing the law office of Yohan Lee, the Korea Franchise 

Associate, Allstar Professional Services, J & K PLC, and LinkOne, among others. Gu Decl. at ¶ 

9. Assuming that service was made at the office of Yohan Lee, it was not effective on BOE 

because Yohan Lee is not BOE’s registered agent for service of process, nor is BOE aware of any 

entity at 5681 Beach Blvd who is BOE’s registered agent.1 Indeed, BOE has no registered agent 

for accepting service of process of lawsuits in Texas or California because it has no presence there. 

Li Decl. at ¶¶ 6-7. Moreover, Yohan Lee is not even BOEA’s registered agent. Before Longitude 

attempted service, BOEA designated its registered agent as CSC Global. Gu Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 9. 

Longitude argues it can circumvent the normal channels for service of process because it 

served BOE’s “general manager.” Ex. A. Even if Longitude had delivered the summons and 

Complaint to BOEA’s registered agent (which it did not), Longitude’s position appears to be based 

on a mistaken reliance on California Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10, which provides that 

service on a corporation may be made “[i]f authorized by any provision in Section . . . 2110 . . . of 

the Corporations Code . . ., as provided by that provision.” Cal. Civ. P. Code. § 416.10(d). Section 

2110, in turn, provides that service on a foreign corporation is valid if a copy of process is delivered 

by hand “to any officer of the corporation or its general manager in this state.” Cal. Corp. Code 

§ 2110. 

This Court has not endorsed the practice of attempting service upon non-party domestic 

subsidiaries as the primary means of serving a foreign entity. Rather, the Court has found that 

service upon a domestic subsidiary might be appropriate in some circumstances, and in such 

circumstances would be consistent with the Hague Convention and Rule 4(e)(1). See Atlas Global 

 

1

 Longitude’s service attempt was made on a female (see Dkt. No. 11 at 1), but Yohan Lee is male. 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 331
8 

Techs. LLC v. TP-Link Techs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-430-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 92 at 8, 2022 WL 

18584501, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2022). Even if the Court were to apply California law in 

analyzing Rule 4(e)(1), Longitude’s service attempt was deficient because neither Yohan Lee nor 

BOEA are BOE’s “general manager” for service of process in the U.S. 

The California Supreme Court has identified a “general manager” for service of process as 

an agent who (1) is “of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that defendant 

would be apprised of the service” and (2) has “given [the defendant] substantially the business 

advantages that it would have enjoyed if it conducted its business through its own offices or paid 

agents in the state.” Cosper v. Smith & Wesson Arms Co., 346 P.2d 409, 413-14 (Cal. 1959). This 

Court has found, in some cases, that a foreign manufacturer’s domestic subsidiary, who is the 

exclusive importer and distributor of that manufacturer, can be a “general manager” under 

California law. Arigna -172, slip op at 9-10; Arigna Tech. Ltd. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, 

No. 2:21-cv-173-JRG, Dkt. No. 90 at 8-10, 2023 WL 6606722, at *4-*5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2023) 

(“Arigna -173”). 

Here, however, the relationship between BOEA and BOE is far different from that of Smith 

& Wesson and its California distributor, as in Cosper, and further still from BMW AG and its 

exclusive domestic supplier and subsidiary BMW NA, as in the Arigna cases. For example, BOEA 

is not a distributor of BOE, nor is it a distributor of any company’s products for the simple reason 

that BOEA does not sell products. Gu Decl. at ¶ 10. Rather, commercial distribution of products 

that Longitude accuses to infringe occurs entirely outside the U.S. and does not involve BOEA. 

Id. at ¶12. In some commercial arrangements, for example, BOE may distribute goods by shipping 

its products (which are interim products, not finished goods) to customers’ Original Equipment 

Manufacturers (“OEMs”) or to hubs that customers designate. Li Decl. at ¶ 10. Notably, these 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 332
9 

hubs and OEMs are all located outside the U.S. Id. BOEA does not manage sales or advertising 

activities for BOE, and BOEA does not earn commissions on sales made by BOE to U.S. 

customers. Gu Decl. at ¶ 10. Far from actively engaging in an exclusive distributor relationship, 

BOEA has the limited role of providing technical and pre-sale service to U.S. customers of BOE. 

Id.

In Arigna -172, the Court found that BMW AG’s domestic subsidiary, BMW NA, was the 

foreign entity’s “point of contact within the United States for product development, product and 

warranty support, and the provision of English product manuals to customers.” Arigna -172, slip 

op. at 8-9. The Court also found important BMW NA’s safeguarding and promotion of BMW’s 

trademarks and the BMW brand to such a degree that BMW NA was considered BMW AG’s agent 

with respect to trademark matters. Id. at 9. Further, the Court remarked on BMW NA’s 

indemnification of BMW centers (i.e., car dealerships) for defects in products manufactured by 

BMW AG. Id. But here, BOEA does none of these things. BOEA is not BOE’s point of contact 

within the U.S. for product development, warranties, or the provision of English product manuals 

or specifications. Gu Decl. at ¶ 11. Nor does BOEA have a duty to act as BOE’s agent for 

trademarks, or to provide indemnification for BOE products. Id. As Longitude’s Complaint 

acknowledges, LCD modules that BOE may sell are interim products that are incorporated into 

devices for eventual sale to end users. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 26.) BOE’s products which are alleged to 

infringe the Asserted Patents are not finished goods. Thus, there are no “user manuals” like those 

in Arigna that would require localization by a local subsidiary. But to the extent an English version 

product specification may be found to be analogous, even those are not prepared by BOEA, but 

are instead prepared by BOE in China. Li Decl. at ¶ 11. 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 333
10 

Next, Longitude has not shown there is “ample regular contact” between BOE and BOEA 

such that BOEA is reasonably likely to apprise BOE of service of process. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Bel 

Fuse Inc., 2010 WL 2605195, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2010); see also Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. 

v. Superior Court, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494, 501 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). Unlike in cases where California 

courts have found a “general manager” relationship, BOEA does not have an exclusive 

arrangement to sell BOE’s products, provide warranty service and English owner manuals, 

perform testing, marketing, and receive complaints about BOE’s products. See Li Decl. at ¶ 11; 

Gu Decl. at ¶ 11. As the Cosper court explained, “the essential factor is that [the domestic entity] 

in his selling and advertising activities was performing services for [the foreign entity] and 

providing it with the opportunity for ‘regular contact with its customers and a channel for a 

continuous flow of business into the state.’” Cosper, 346 P.2d at 414. Here, BOEA’s activities 

are not performed to provide a continuous flow of business into the state of California. 

Moreover, BOEA has no management responsibilities over the allegedly infringing 

activities of BOE at issue in this lawsuit. Longitude has accused BOE of patent infringement based 

on BOE’s alleged making, using, offering to sell, and/or importing of LCD panels and/or modules 

in the U.S. that are incorporated into third-party devices, such as LCD TVs and monitors made by 

LG and LCD monitors made by HP. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 3, 31-33, 44). BOEA has no involvement, 

much less management responsibilities, as to these activities. For example, BOEA is not involved 

in the design and incorporation of LCD panels or modules of the allegedly infringing products. 

Gu Decl. at ¶ 12. Nor is BOEA involved in the importing, distributing, or selling of allegedly 

infringing products. Id. Unlike the Arigna cases, BOEA is not the “exclusive importer and 

distributor of [BOE] products in the United States.” Arigna -172, slip op. at 10. Thus, BOEA is 

not “of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that [BOE] would be apprised 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 334
11 

of the service of process” in this particular matter. Cosper, 346 P.2d at 413-14. Longitude appears 

to acknowledge this by requesting reissuance of the summons in this case to list solely Defendant 

“BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.” at “12 Xihuanzhong Rd, BDA, Beijing, 100176, P.R. China” 

(without “c/o BOE Technology America, Inc.” or “c/o Yohan Lee” and corresponding addresses 

in California). (Compare Dkt. No. 10 with Dkt. No. 12.) 

D. Longitude’s Mistaken View of Case Law 

Longitude’s position appears to be that a domestic subsidiary is automatically a “general 

manager” for a foreign corporation. But in SKC Kolon PI, Inc. v. Kaneka Corp., 2010 WL 

11553177, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2010), a California court applying California law rejected 

this position in an analogous situation. There, the domestic subsidiary’s registered agent did not 

qualify as a Section 2110 “general manager” of a Japanese parent entity because the subsidiary’s 

activities were focused on another state, namely, Texas. SKC Kolon, 2010 WL 11553177, at *3; 

see also Jones v. James Trading Co. Ltd., 2019 WL 6354392 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2019). 

Here, like the domestic subsidiary in SKC Kolon, BOEA has business activities focused 

elsewhere, not just California. For example, BOEA’s major responsibilities include 

communicating with clients all around the U.S. and providing technical support when requested. 

Gu Decl. at ¶ 8. Further, contrary to Longitude’s allegations in paragraph 28 of the complaint, 

BOEA no longer has a Texas office. While at one time BOEA had offices in Houston, Texas and 

San Diego, California, BOEA currently has offices only in Santa Clara, California, Detroit, 

Michigan, and Boston, Massachusetts. Id. at ¶ 13. Thus, the work of BOEA, while being managed 

from its offices in California, Michigan, or Massachusetts, focuses on various locations in the U.S., 

including Texas. As explained above, the operations of BOEA are detached from any operations 

of BOE that led to this lawsuit, supra at 10, but the operations that BOEA does engage in are 

spread around the U.S. and include activities in Texas. Using the same reasoning that the court 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 335
12 

applied in SKC Kolon, the Court here should find that “because [BOEA]’s business activities are 

focused elsewhere, . . . [BOEA] cannot be [BOE]’s ‘general manager in this state.’” SKC Kolon, 

2010 WL 11553177, at *3. 

Additionally, there is no per se rule in this Court that service on a domestic subsidiary is 

sufficient to extend to a foreign entity. The Court has recognized the significant complexities in 

evaluating whether a domestic entity is a “managing or general agent” capable of accepting service 

for a foreign parent, and typically, the Court weighs a plaintiff’s previous attempts in effecting 

service abroad prior to determining whether to allow service on a domestic entity. See Vista Peak 

Ventures, LLC v. Hisense Co., Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-262-JRG, Dkt. No. 47 at 6, 2023 WL 1992566, 

at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2023) (citing Jim Fox Enters., Inc. v. Air France, 664 F.2d 63, 64 (5th 

Cir. 1981)). The Court has not adopted any rule that a subsidiary is a “general manager” of a 

foreign parent simply by virtue of existing in the U.S. 

Accordingly, despite Longitude’s creative efforts to avoid established service law, 

Longitude has not effectuated service on BOE by its single service attempt on the outdated former 

registered agent of a subsidiary in another state. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Longitude’s complaint makes patent infringement accusations against BOE, located in 

China, but the summons was purportedly served on the former registered agent of non-party BOEA 

in California, without any attempt by Longitude to first attempt service on BOE by traditional 

means or move for alternative service. This is improper under the Federal Rules. Accordingly, 

BOE respectfully moves the Court to dismiss this action for insufficient service or to quash the 

service. 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 336
13 

Dated: December 21, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Eric H. Findlay 

James R. Barney (LEAD) (pro hac vice

forthcoming) 

Qingyu Yin (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Ryan T. Davies (DC Bar No. 1686044) 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

901 New York Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001-4413 

Tel: (202) 408-4000 

Fax: (202) 408-4400 

Email: james.barney@finnegan.com 

Email: qingyu.yin@finnegan.com 

Email: ryan.davies@finnegan.com 

Eric H. Findlay (TX Bar No. 00789886) 

FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C. 

7270 Crosswater Avenue, Suite B 

Tyler, Texas 75703 

Tel: (903) 534-1100 

Fax: (903) 534-1137 

Email: efindlay@findlaycraft.com 

Counsel for Defendant BOE Technology 

Group Co., Ltd.

 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 337
14 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 21, 2023, I caused the foregoing MOTION TO 

DISMISS OR QUASH BASED ON INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS to be

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing via electronic mail to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Eric H. Findlay 

 Eric H. Findlay 

Case 2:23-cv-00515-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 12/21/23 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 338