Anova Applied Electronics Inc v. Perch Acquisition Co 1 LLC
2:23-cv-00843
| W.D. Wash. | Sep 13, 2023Background
- Anova Applied Electronics sued several International and Domestic defendants for alleged patent and trademark infringement relating to its Precision Cooker.
- None of the International Defendants have been served or appeared; Domestic Defendants were either served or waived service but have not appeared.
- Anova attempted to notify International Defendants by email using addresses from USPTO records and Amazon communications and contacted U.S. trademark counsel listed in USPTO records; many emails went unanswered or counsel said they no longer represented the defendants.
- Anova moved for (1) court authorization to serve the International Defendants by email under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), (2) a short extension to effect service, and (3) a 30-day extension of the court’s initial scheduling deadlines.
- The court denied email service without prejudice because Anova did not show that alternative service was necessary (no evidence addresses were invalid, no proof of evasion, and no Hague Convention attempt shown), denied the Rule 4(m) extension as moot (Rule 4(m) inapplicable to foreign defendants), ordered 30‑day status reports on service, and granted a 30‑day extension of the scheduling deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should authorize alternative service by email under Rule 4(f)(3) | Email is appropriate because Anova’s emails went unanswered and Hague Convention is slow | No appearance; court noted lack of evidence the physical addresses are invalid or that defendants are evading service | Denied without prejudice — Anova failed to show necessity for Rule 4(f)(3) alternative service |
| Whether to extend time to serve under Rule 4(m) | Requests 14–60 day extension to serve international defendants | N/A — defendants unserved/did not appear | Denied as moot — Rule 4(m) 90‑day limit does not apply to service abroad; court ordered 30‑day status reports instead |
| Whether to extend the court’s scheduling order deadlines | Requests 30‑day extension because of settlement discussions with a Domestic defendant | N/A | Granted — initial scheduling deadlines extended by 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 4(f)(3) permits court‑directed alternative international service and requires showing of necessity and due‑process compliance)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (service method must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties and afford opportunity to be heard)
- Keck v. Alibaba.com, Inc., 330 F.R.D. 255 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (analyzing factors for authorizing alternative service and requiring demonstration that other methods are impracticable)