An interesting and seemingly Hague-related case came to light this week, and it came specifically to my attention thanks to the NorCal IP Blog by the guys at Orrick Herrington.* As it turns out, it isn’t a Hague case after all. It’s a straight-up civil procedure question.
The case, in a nutshell: Japanese company, Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (Godo for our purposes here, but the judge calls them IPB), sues American company Xilinx (ZY-links?) for patent infringement in E.D. Tex., the current hotbed of IP litigation.
Xilinx, as luck would have it, sued Godo for patent infringement in N.D. Cal.– the mother ship of IP litigation– the very next day, and asked the judge for leave to serve Godo via Godo’s U.S. counsel. Motion granted.
The judge’s order, as you can see here, explores the interplay of Rule 4(f)(3) and the Hague Service Convention, but it misses a critical point in the analysis: the Convention applies “where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.” It’s right there in Article 1.
If you can serve a foreign defendant in the U.S. (whether via a subsidiary or via its U.S. counsel), the Hague Service Convention is inapplicable. Utterly irrelevant. Moot.
But even more critical… so is Rule 4(f).** It only applies to service at a place outside the U.S., not here at home. If service is to be effective via a foreigner’s U.S. counsel, it must be pursuant to Rule 4(h)(1)(b)… that is, “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to (…) any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.”
The salient question, which I avoid exploring here, is whether U.S. counsel can be appointed by the judge hearing the case. Ultimately, this shouldn’t even have been a Hague question– it should have been an analysis of Rule 4, its overseas procedures excepted. Had the judge denied the motion, then plaintiff’s counsel would have been forced to serve in Japan, and only then would Hague procedures be implicated.
[Don’t even get me started on why everybody ought to just waive in the first place. Sure, you wouldn’t have to hire me, but still…]
Update, 4/13/17: Ted Folkman posted on a similar opinion out of the same district on this morning— the latest in a line of cases he’s explored over the years. As Ted points out in the comments below, only one case, out of E.D. Mich., has gotten it right, but he squares the circle for the others quite nicely in his thoughts on the Michigan opinion. I commend those thoughts to you.
* Hat tip to Daniel Justice (could there be a better surname for a lawyer?) and George Kanabe.
** Rule 4(f), in its entirety [applicable to corporations thanks to 4(h)(2)]:
(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice:
(A) as prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction;
(B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or
(C) unless prohibited by the foreign country’s law, by:
(i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; or
(ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual and that requires a signed receipt; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.