1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROCHE DIABETES CARE, LTD.,

Defendant.

Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP

Consolidated Case No. 2:24-cv-00046-

JRG-RSP

[Concurrently filed with supporting 

declarations of Colin R. Jensen and

Randall Garteiser]

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

WONDERSHARE TECHNOLOGY 

GROUP CO LTD.,

Defendant.

SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER 

SERVICE AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR ALTERNATE SERVICE

Now comes Plaintiff filing Reply in Support of its Motion for Alternative Service under Rule 

4(f)(3) and also Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply in Support of its Opposition to Defendant Wondershare’s motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5).

Defendant Wondershare Technology Group Co Ltd.’s Reply in support of its motion to dismiss, 

fails to address the glaring fact that Wondershare’s Canadian Office refused to accept service. Declaration 

of Colin R. Jensen, ¶ 11, ¶ 12, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3. 

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 24 Filed 05/11/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 855
2

Defendant’s Reply concedes it has actual knowledge about this litigation, which it cannot deny 

because Plaintiff provided Wondershare a 30-day stipulated (agreed) extension, and Wondershare 

considered and rejected Plaintiff’s request for a waiver of service in exchange for a 60 or 90 day extension.

(Exhibit A to the Declaration of Randall Garteiser).

Figure 1 – Exhibit A excerpt from Plaintiff’s counsel asking Wondershare if it will agree to waive service 

of process under Rule 4. 

In something not seen before by Plaintiff’s counsel, a FedEx courier attempting service in Canada 

after attempting service clarified in the FedEx official record that “Delivery was refused by the recipient,”

where the recipient is the Defendant Wondershare, not a subsidiary of the Defendant. Exhibit 3 at 3. 

Figure 2 – FedEx Canadian Office Entry “Delivery was refused by the recipient.” Exhibit 3 at 3.

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 24 Filed 05/11/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 856
3

As a global company, Wondershare’s website touts its office in Canada located at 200-4445 

LOUGHEED HWY, BURNABY, BC CA V5C0E4. Exhibit 2 at 1; Exhibit 3 at 1 (same address).

Figure 3 – Excerpt from Exhibit 2 Defendant Wondershare’s website as last visited on May 10, 2024. 

The address Canadian address listed on Wondershare’s own website of 200-4445 LOUGHEED 

HWY, BURNABY, BC CA V5C0E4, is the identical address Plaintiff served via FedEx Delivery as 

shown in Exhibit 3. As such, Defendant not only has personal knowledge of this lawsuit but is now 

actively refusing to accept service. Compare Exhibit 3 with Exhibit 2.

Figure 4 – Exhibit 3 excerpt showing Wondershare address is identical Wondershare’s website.

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 24 Filed 05/11/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 857
4

Thus, Defendant Wondershare is now dodging service, unnecessarily increasing the cost of this 

litigation, and delaying the case from proceeding with judicial economy as it is consolidated with codefendants Roche and Vivint. 

Additionally, Defendant Wondershare’s Reply completely fails to address the cases directly on 

point supporting Plaintiff’s motion for alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3). Dkt. 14 (Opp.) at 2 (citing 

cases including [1] In re OnePlus, [2] Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Nissan N. Am. Inc., and [3] Stingray 

IP Sols., LLC v. Signify N.V. 2021 WL 9095765, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2021)). Instead, Defendant 

resorts to citing bankruptcy case involving a default, not applicable to the facts in play here where 

Plaintiff has actual notice of this lawsuit so there is no concern about taking advantage of an unsuspecting 

defendant.

Moreover, Wondershare’s Reply fails to address Plaintiff’s plain statement of the law - “alternative 

service is not precluded by the Hague Convention.” Dkt. 14 (Opp.) at 2 (citing Volkswagenwerk 

Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 699 (1988).

Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Court deny Wondershare’s motion, and grant Plaintiff’s motion 

for alternative or substitute service, under Rule 4(f)(3) to avoid additional delay in this consolidated case. 

4(f)(3) relief when “failure to permit alternat[ive] service will result in unduly long delays in litigation.”

Int’l Designs Corp., LLC v. Qindao SeaForest Hair Prods. Co., Ltd., No. 17-60431-CIV-MORENO,

2018 WL 2364297, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2018).

///

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 24 Filed 05/11/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 858
5

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser 

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@ghiplaw.com

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 sfuller@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

Facsimile: (903) 284-5200

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per 

Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on May 11, 2024. 

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

 

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 24 Filed 05/11/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 859