IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HANSHOW TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. AND 

SHANGHAI HANSHI INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

Plaintiffs,

v. 

SES-IMAGOTAG SA, SES-IMAGOTAG GMBH 

AND CAPTANA GMBH

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP

PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(2) 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

948
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

949
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

 Page(s) 

Cases

AX Wireless LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., 

2023 WL 7105701 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 6, 2023) .................................................................2, 3, 7, 9

Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 

21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994)............................................................................................4, 6, 8

Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., 

792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................6

Electronics For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 

340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..............................................................................................1, 5

Luv N'Care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 

438 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................3, 7, 8

Orange Electronics Co. Ltd v. Autel Intelligent Technology Corp. Ltd., 

2022 WL 4368160 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2022) ...................................................................3, 7, 9

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

950
1 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs have established that this Court has personal jurisdiction over VusionGroup 

GmbH and Captana GmbH (collectively, “Moving Defendants”). Despite this, Moving 

Defendants’ Reply (Dkt. No. 51) makes broad, sweeping assertions that Plaintiffs have no

evidence supporting personal jurisdiction and that Moving Defendants should be dismissed from 

the case. Moving Defendants are incorrect.

The evidence establishes that 

. The law 

governing personal jurisdiction does not require a foreign entity 

 for personal jurisdiction to exist. 

Personal jurisdiction is proper in Texas. 

Further, even if there were questions of fact remaining, on a motion to dismiss for lack of 

personal jurisdiction, the district court must accept uncontroverted allegations in plaintiff's 

complaint as true and resolve any factual conflicts in plaintiff's favor. Electronics For Imaging, 

Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003). As established in Plaintiffs’ well-pled Complaint, 

this Court has personal jurisdiction over Moving Defendants. 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

951
2 

II. MOVING DEFENDANTS HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH THE UNITED 

STATES AND TEXAS

Plaintiffs have provided ample evidence that Moving Defendants have 

and Moving Defendants’ assertions to the contrary are 

disingenuous. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 51 at 2. Uncontroverted evidence establishes that 

See Dkt. No. 49-8. 

 Dkt No. 49-1 at 41:4–12, 50:12–17; Ex. 1 (Rallu Dep.) at 14:23-16:10. 

While Moving Defendants assert this does not establish minimum contacts, their arguments lack 

merit. 

For example, Moving Defendants repeatedly emphasize that 

 Dkt. No. 51 at 2. These statements paint an incomplete picture 

of and are also irrelevant under the law. First, Moving Defendants ignore that, 

 Dkt. No. 49-1 at 51:13–20; see also Dkt Nos. 49-8, 49-2. 

Second, that Moving Defendants are 

 is of no moment. It is well-established that “a foreign company need 

not itself sell the accused goods in the forum” or “manufacture the accused goods” in the forum to 

establish personal jurisdiction. AX Wireless LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., 2023 WL 7105701, *3 

(E.D. Tex. Sep. 6, 2023). Similarly, jurisdiction “‘does not depend on the technicalities of when 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

952
3 

title passes;’ rather, jurisdiction may attach both to manufacturers who supply their own delivery 

systems and to those that make use of the distribution systems of third parties.” Luv N’ care, Ltd. 

v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 471 (5th Cir. 2005).1 Further, even where, as here, there is a 

domestic distributor, the “domestic distributor ... need not be a named defendant in the case for 

personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant.” AX Wireless LLC, 2023 WL 7105701 at *3; 

Orange Electronic Co. Ltd., 2022 WL 4368160 at *1. 

Moving Defendants also try to 

Dkt. No. 49-4 at 7. 

. Id. Further, Moving Defendants fail 

to recognize that 

 Ex. 1 at 

14:23–16:10. 

Id. at 18:15–22. 

Moving Defendants also assert that 

 

1 While the Court applies Federal Circuit law in patent cases to evaluate whether personal 

jurisdiction exists, “the Fifth Circuit relies on the same analysis as the Federal Circuit in deciding 

whether personal jurisdiction exists.” Orange Electronic Co. Ltd., 2022 WL 4368160 at *1. 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

953
4 

. 

Dkt. No. 51 at 3. But 

 Ex. 1 at 19:14–18, 19:23–20:14, 20:21–25. 

None of these points is disputed and 

. 

Further, with respect to Texas, Moving Defendants do not dispute that

. Dkt. 49 at 10; see generally Dkt. No. 51. 

Moving Defendants also do not dispute that 

 Dkt. No. 51 at 3. 

Moving Defendants also do not dispute that

 Dkt. 49-4 at 9. While Moving Defendants argue the evidence does not establish 

that 

. See Beverly Hills, 21 F.3d at 1566. Second, it defies logic that 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

954
Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

955
6 

“mere placement into the stream of commerce is sufficient to establish jurisdiction.”2 Celgard, 

LLC v. SK Innovation Co., 792 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

Plaintiffs also make the required showing under the other stream of commerce theory test, 

which further requires “‘an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.’” 

Beverly Hills, 21 F.3d at 1566 (citing Asahi, 480 U.S. at 112) (emphasis in original). As outlined 

in Plaintiff’s Opposition, 

. See Dkt. No. 49 at 12. 

Further, 

. Dkt Nos. 49-4 at 6–7; 49-3 at 40:23–41:13; 49-1 at 47:12–14, 51:13–

20. 

. Dkt. Nos. 49-1 at 61:15–21, 66:12–25; 49-4 at 7, 12–13; 49-

3 at 9:15–10:1; Ex. 1 at 27:5–23. Further, 

See, e.g., Dkt. No. 49-3 at 47:1–20, 48:5–20; Dkt. No. 

49-11; Ex. 2. This is more than enough to establish personal jurisdiction under the second stream 

of commerce theory.

 

2

 Moving Defendants’ argument that intent is required is based on a party’s arguments in 

Celgard, not the Federal Circuit’s articulation of the two stream of commerce theory tests. 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

956
7 

VusionGroup GmbH is also 

. Dkt. Nos. 49-1 at 49:12–

14, 50:9–11, 80:6–17; 49 at 3–4. 

Dkt. Nos. 49-1 at 63:4–10; 49-4 at 12–13. This again is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction 

under the second stream of commerce theory. 

In arguing personal jurisdiction is improper, Moving Defendants manufacture the 

additional requirements that Moving Defendants be physically located in the United States or 

Texas, or sell or manufacture the Accused Products there. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 51 at 1–2. But these 

are not requirements for personal jurisdiction. As discussed above, a foreign company does not 

itself need to sell or manufacture the accused goods in the forum to establish personal jurisdiction. 

AX Wireless LLC, 2023 WL 7105701, *3. Similarly, jurisdiction does not depend on when title 

passes. Luv N’ care, Ltd., 438 F.3d at 471. Further, even where there is a domestic distributor, 

personal jurisdiction can exist over the foreign defendant even if the domestic distributor is not 

named. AX Wireless LLC, 2023 WL 7105701 at *3; Orange Electronic Co. Ltd., 2022 WL 

4368160 at *1. Additionally, and contrary to Moving Defendants’ assertion, there is no need for 

destination-identifying invoices for establishing personal jurisdiction. Luv N’ care, Ltd., 438 F.3d 

at 471. As the Court in Luv N’ care stated, “mere foreseeability or awareness [is] a constitutionally 

sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction if the defendant’s product made its way into the forum 

state while still in the stream of commerce.” Id., 438 F.3d at 470.

At base, a defendant does not need to manufacture, sell, or import, the Accused Products 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

957
8 

in or into the United States for personal jurisdiction to be proper. See Dkt. No. 49 at 5–7. Instead, 

. Beverly Hills, 21 F.3d at 1566. 

B. Plaintiffs’ Patent Infringement Claims Arise Out of or Relate to Those 

Activities

Moving Defendants incorrectly state that Plaintiffs’ Opposition does not discuss whether 

Moving Defendants’ “arise out of or relate to” plaintiffs’ infringement 

claims. Dkt. No. 51 at 6–7. As Plaintiffs explained in their Opposition, 

Dkt. No. 49 at 16. For example, 

Id. The 

importation, offer for sale, and sale of these Accused Products are central to Plaintiffs’ patent 

infringement claims. Id. This is enough to confer personal jurisdiction. Luv N’ care, Ltd., 438 F.3d 

at 473 (finding claim “for infringement from the same bottle that traveled through the stream of 

commerce from Colorado to Louisiana” was “sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.”).

Moving Defendants assert that 

Dkt. No. 51 at 7–8. These assertions are 

legally and factually flawed. First, Moving Defendants provide no legal support for the assertion 

that Plaintiffs must establish that 

enters the stream of commerce together. Id. Nor would such a requirement make sense, especially, 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

958
9 

as here, . See Dkt. 

No. 49-5. 

Second, Plaintiffs do not need to prove direct infringement for the purposes of establishing 

personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs need only prove that Moving Defendants’ 

“arise out of or relate to” plaintiffs’ infringement claims. Here, the infringement claims are 

based on the use of the Captana Accused Products and VUSION ESLs, which VusionGroup itself 

advertises as being used together in practice. See, e.g., Ex. 3; see also Dkt Nos. 1-8; 1-9. Moving 

Defendants’ 

. 

C. Personal Jurisdiction Over Moving Defendants Would Not Offend 

Traditional Notices of Fair Play and Substantial Justice. 

As established in Plaintiffs’ Opposition, exercising personal jurisdiction over Moving 

Defendants would not offend traditional notices of fair play and substantial justice. Dkt. No. 49 at 

14–17. While Moving Defendants argue otherwise, Moving Defendants’ Reply does not analyze 

the five factors used to assess whether exercising specific jurisdiction is unfair or unreasonable. 

See id. at 15; Dkt. No. 51 at 8–9. Instead, Moving Defendants make the sweeping accusation that 

Plaintiffs are simply engaging in venue manipulation, then go on to argue that Moving Defendants’ 

contacts with the United States and Texas are unrelated to the infringement allegations and that 

Moving Defendants are not necessary in this case. Dkt. No. 51 at 8–9. 

All are incorrect. First, as discussed above, there is no requirement that a “domestic 

distributor ... be a named defendant in the case for personal jurisdiction over the foreign 

defendant.” AX Wireless LLC, 2023 WL 7105701 at *3; see also Orange Electronic Co. Ltd., 2022 

WL 4368160 at *1. Second, as discussed above and in Plaintiffs’ Opposition, 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

959
10 

. See Dkt. No. 49 at 11–14. Third, 

Thus, Texas has an interest in furthering social 

policies and ensuring that patent laws are obeyed. Id. at 14–20. 

VI. PERSONAL JURISDICTION CAN BE ESTABLISHED UNDER FED. R. CIV. 

 P. 4(k)(2) 

Moving Defendants’ only argument against jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) is 

that Moving Defendants do not have minimum contacts with the United States. They do. 

As discussed above, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that (

Id. at 11–14. Further, as discussed above, Plaintiffs’ 

infringement claims are based on the sale, offer for sale, and/or use of the Accused Products in the 

United States. Id. at 16; See also Dkt Nos. 1-8, 1-9. That establishes that Moving Defendants’ 

are tied to the infringement allegations. Thus, personal jurisdiction 

is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). 

VII. VUSIONGROUP GMBH WAIVED PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Moving Defendants continue to ignore that the VUSION ESLs at issue in this case are also 

at issue in Hanshow I. As VusionGroup GmbH’s consenting to personal jurisdiction being proper 

over the VUSION ESLs there supports a finding that jurisdiction is proper here. 

VIII. CONCLUSION

 For the above reasons, and as established in the Complaint and Plaintiffs’ Opposition, 

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Moving Defendants’ Motion. 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

960
11 

Dated: August 13, 2024 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Boyd Cloern 

 Boyd Cloern

 Scott Richey

Katherine D. Cappaert 

Steptoe LLP

 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW 

 Washington, DC 20036 

 Telephone: (202) 429-3000 

 Facsimile: (202) 429-3902 

 bcloern@steptoe.com 

 srichey@steptoe.com

 kcappaert@steptoe.com 

 Jamie Lucia

 Benjamin Ho

 Steptoe LLP

 One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower

 10th Floor, Suite 1070 

 San Francisco, CA 94105 

 Telephone: (415) 365-6711 

 Facsimile: (415) 365-6699 

 jlucia@steptoe.com

 bho@steptoe.com 

 Hao Tan (IL Bar No. 6314119) 

 Shen Wang (IL Bar No. 6314224) 

 Peter J. Curtin (IL Bar No. 6332596) 

 203 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 2100 

 Chicago, IL 60601 

 Phone: 312-558-1369 

 Fax: 312-614-1873 

 Shenwang@archlakelaw.com

 HaoTan@archlakelaw.com

 Pete_curtin@archlakelaw.com

 Geoffrey P. Culbertson 

 (TX Bar No. 24045732) 

 PATTON TIDWELL & 

 CULBERTSON, LLP

 2800 Texas Boulevard 

 Texarkana, TX 75503 

 Telephone: (903) 792-7080 

 Facsimile: (903) 792-8233 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

961
12 

 gpc@texarkanalaw.com 

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hanshow 

 Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai 

 Hanshi Information Technology Co., 

 Ltd. 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

962
13 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in 

compliance with Local Rules and served on all counsel of record via electronic means. Therefore, 

this document was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service 

on August 13, 2024. 

/s/ Boyd Cloern 

Boyd Cloern 

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SEAL

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(7)(B), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing 

document and following attachments are permitted to be filed under seal pursuant to the Protective 

Order (Dkt. No. 41) governing this case. 

/s/ Boyd Cloern 

Boyd Cloern 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 55 Filed 08/22/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:

PUBLIC VERSION

963