Court Opinion

ID: 9927223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 16:01:49.089787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:08.206883
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-103    Document: 12     Page: 1    Filed: 01/26/2024

          NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

   In re: APUTURE IMAGING INDUSTRIES CO.,
                      LTD.,
                     Petitioner
              ______________________

                         2024-103
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 4:23-
cv-00508-ALM, Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

    Before DYK, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
    Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. petitions for a
writ of mandamus directing the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas to vacate its October
16, 2023, order and deny Rotolight Limited’s motion for
substituted service. Rotolight opposes.
    In June 2023, Rotolight filed a complaint in the East-
ern District of Texas against Aputure alleging patent in-
fringement. In September 2023, Rotolight moved for
substituted service pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil
Case: 24-103    Document: 12      Page: 2    Filed: 01/26/2024

2                IN RE: APUTURE IMAGING INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.

Procedure 106(b), which provides for court-authorized ser-
vice in any “manner, including electronically . . . that . . .
evidence shows will be reasonably effective” if service via
registered or certified mail or delivery “has not been suc-
cessful.” * Specifically, Rotolight sought permission to serve
Aputure, which is based in China, by emailing a copy of the
summons and complaint to Aputure’s legal counsel.
     In its motion and supporting affidavit, Rotolight stated
that it made several unsuccessful attempts to serve Apu-
ture at a California address obtained from multiple online
business databases that had the same zip code as an office
listed on Aputure’s own website. In its opposition, Aputure
argued that Rotolight had not shown that the California
address “is actually the address of Aputure,” and asserted
that Rotolight should be required to provide service that
comports with the Hague Convention on the Service
Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil
and Commercial Matters.
     On October 16, 2023, the court issued an order permit-
ting substituted service on Aputure’s attorney. The court
found that “service has been attempted unsuccessfully for
a sufficient number of times upon Defendant at locations
reported to be” its “places of residence” in California,
Appx1. And the court found that delivering a copy of the
complaint and summons on the specified email address
“will be effective to give notice to Defendant of this suit and
an opportunity to answer and defend.” Id. Aputure then
filed this petition seeking to vacate that order and deny the
request for substituted service. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 1295.

    *    Under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), service
may be performed by “following state law for serving a
summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdic-
tion in the state where the district court is located.”
Case: 24-103    Document: 12      Page: 3     Filed: 01/26/2024

IN RE: APUTURE IMAGING INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.                 3

    To obtain an extraordinary writ of mandamus, a peti-
tioner must satisfy three conditions: (1) the petitioner must
have “no other adequate means to attain the relief [it] de-
sires,” (2) the petitioner must show that the “right to issu-
ance of the writ is clear and indisputable,” and (3) the court
“in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the
writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (inter-
nal quotation marks and citations omitted). Aputure has
not met that demanding standard. As an initial matter,
Aputure has not shown that a post-judgment appeal would
be inadequate to address the alleged violation. See In re
Realtek Semiconductor Corp., No. 2023-132, 2023 WL
5274627, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2023).
     Nor has Aputure demonstrated a clear and indisputa-
ble right to relief. Aputure argues that the district court
indisputably erred in refusing to require Rotolight to first
attempt service of process in China in compliance with Fed-
eral Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) and 4(f)(2). But that
argument faces several obstacles. First, those provisions
govern only service “at a place not within any judicial dis-
trict of the United States,” and the district court appears to
have concluded Aputure could be served in California. Sec-
ond, even putting aside that finding, Rule 4(f)(2) does not
displace Rule 4(f)(3), which permits service by “other court-
ordered means not prohibited by international agreement.”
See Nuance Commc'ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626
F.3d 1222, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that Rule 4(f)(3)
“stands independently” and “on equal footing” with Rule
4(f)(2) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); In
re OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co., No. 2021-165, 2021 WL
4130643, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2021) (noting that a
showing that the plaintiff has reasonably attempted to ef-
fectuate service by conventional means is not an exhaus-
tion requirement for service under Rule 4(f)(3)). And
finally, district courts are generally accorded broad discre-
tion in determining whether to allow alternative means of
Case: 24-103    Document: 12       Page: 4   Filed: 01/26/2024

4                  IN RE: APUTURE IMAGING INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.

service. See Nuance, 626 F.3d at 1239–41. On this record,
we are not prepared to say that granting Rotolight’s motion
was a clear abuse of discretion that would warrant manda-
mus relief.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.

                                              FOR THE COURT

 January 26, 2024
      Date