In re: Subpoena to Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
3:25-mc-80082
| N.D. Cal. | Jun 4, 2025Background
- Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc. (UCT) sued Lenovo Group Limited in the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement and sought third-party discovery from Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (Realtek), a Taiwanese company and Lenovo supplier.
- UCT issued a Rule 45 subpoena to Realtek requesting source code and technical documentation related to allegedly infringing Realtek components in Lenovo's products.
- UCT attempted multiple modes of service on Realtek, including in Taiwan, by email to U.S. counsel, and ultimately obtained leave for alternate service (via mail and email) from the Texas court.
- Realtek moved in the Northern District of California to quash the subpoena, arguing improper service, geographic limit violations, and undue burden. UCT cross-moved to compel compliance.
- Realtek filed some objections late, and the court considered whether to excuse the delay in objection, assess adequacy of service, and apply Rule 45's geographic compliance requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Objections | UCT: Realtek waived by delay | Realtek: Delay should be excused | Court excused Realtek’s late objections for good cause |
| Validity of Alternate Service | UCT: Service under Rule 4(f) ok | Realtek: Only US personal service allowed | Alternate service under Rule 4(f) was proper |
| Geographic Limits of Rule 45 | UCT: Realtek has US ties, so 100-mile rule met | Realtek: Not within 100 miles; based in Taiwan | Subpoena violated Rule 45(c) geographic limit; quashed |
| Jurisdiction | UCT: Not directly disputed | Realtek: (raised late) Court lacks personal jurisdiction | Court declined to address as issue was raised too late |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2012) (broad discretion for courts to manage discovery)
- Garrett v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir. 1987) (court's discretion to grant motion to compel)
- Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) (waiver of objections for untimeliness)
- In re Kirkland, 75 F.4th 1030 (9th Cir. 2023) (geographical limitations of Rule 45)
- AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., 2014 WL 6706873 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (production location limitations under Rule 45) (NOTE: No official reporter citation, not a hyperlink here)