IN RE: SUBPOENA TO REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR
Case No. 25-mc-80082-TLT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 4, 2025
TRINA L. THOMPSON, United States District Judge
UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY TECHNOLOGIES INC., Defendant. Re: ECF 1, 8
Before the Court is Movant Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Realtek“)‘s motion to quash subpoena, ECF 1, and Respondent Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc. (“UCT“)‘s cross-motion to compel, ECF 8.
The instant miscellaneous matter stems from the pending action Universal Connectivity Tech. Inc. v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd. (Lenovo) in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. See Universal Connectivity Tech. Inc. v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG (E.D. Tex.). In Lenovo, UCT seeks third-party discovery from Realtek thrоugh subpoena. Id. ECF 63, 82.
On March 28, 2025, Realtek filed a motion to quash the subpoena before this Court pursuant to
The Court found the matters suitable for resolution without oral argument and took them under submission. ECF 29; see L.R. 7-1(b) (authorizing courts to dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is required by statute). After review and consideration of the motions, briefings, attachments and exhibits thereto, the Court GRANTS the motion to quash subpoena and DENIES the cross-motion to compel.
A. Realtek and UCT
Realtek is a Taiwanese semiconductor company with its principal place of business at No.2 Innovation Road II, Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan. ECF 1-2, Exhibit (“Ex.“) A to Declaration of Mark Speegle (“Speegle Decl.“), Declaration of Huang, Yee-Wei (“Huang Decl.“), ¶ 4. Realtek dеsigns and manufactures integrated circuit semiconductor chips, which it provides to computer manufacturers around the world. ECF 1, at 1. Realtek does not lease or own any real property in the United States, nor does it have any employees in the United States. Huang Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. Realtek has corporate affiliates, such as Cortina Access Inc. and Ubilinx Technology Inc., with locations in the United States. Id. ¶ 7; Lenovo, No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG, ECF 82-4 at 108.
In the Lenovo action, Lenovо Group Limited (“Lenovo“) identified Realtek as one of its third-party component suppliers and provided the specific model numbers of the relevant Realtek components used in Lenovo‘s Products that are accused of infringement. ECF 9, Declaration of Brett Cooper (“Cooper Decl.“) ¶ 11. UCT now seeks third-party discovery regarding technical documents and source code related to the Realtek сomponent parts identified by Lenovo. ECF 8, at 7, 11.
B. Subpoena at Issue
UCT‘s subpoena demands production of documents described in a “Schedule A” at 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300, Redwood Shores, CA, 94065, on March 3, 2025. ECF 1-4, Ex. C to Speegle Decl., at 21. Schedule A of the subpoena requests the following:
1. Source code sufficient to show the operation of the Accused Features for each of the Realtek Chipsets, including the source code for hardwarе design and specification language descriptions, such as SDL, HDL, VHDL, iHDL, Verilog, System Verilog, or RTL, and the source code for higher software programming design languages, such as C and C++ programming languages.
2. Technical documents sufficient to show the operation of the Accused Features for each of the Realtek Chipsets that Realtek has supplied to Lenovo.
Id. at 11-12. The subpoena provides definitions of terms. Id. at 5-8. It also provides the stipulated protective оrder entered in the Lenovo action. Id. at 13-34.
On September 28, 2023, UCT filed suit against Lenovo in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that Lenovo‘s Products that support certain USB, PCIe, and DisplayPort standards infringe eight of UCT‘s U.S. Patents. Lenovo, No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG, ECF 1. On October 11, 2024, in response to discovery requests, Lenovo identified Realtek as one of its third-party component suppliers and provided the specific model numbers of the relevant Realtek components used in Lenovo‘s Prоducts that are accused of infringement. Cooper Decl. ¶ 11.
On October 23, 2024, UCT attempted to serve Realtek with a subpoena at its corporate headquarters in Taiwan. Id. ¶ 12. On November 18, 2024, UCT emailed the subpoena to Realtek‘s U.S. counsel in an unrelated action, but did not receive a response. Id. ¶ 13.
On November 25, 2024, UCT then filed a sealed motion for issuance of letters rogatory to seek discovery from Realtek, which thе Eastern District of Texas Court denied without prejudice because the court disapproved of UCT sealing its motion. Lenovo, No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG, ECF 59, 62. UCT then filed an unsealed motion for issuance of a Letters Rogatory, which the court granted on December 5, 2024. Id. ECF 63, 66.
On January 22, 2025, UCT filed a Motion for Alternative Service with the Court in the Eastern District of Texas requesting leave to serve Realtek with its subpoena by registered mail and by serving Realtek‘s counsel by email in an unrelated case. Id. ECF 82. The Court granted UCT‘s Motion for Alternative Service on February 15, 2025. Id. ECF 97.
On February 25, 2025, Realtek‘s counsel requested a call with UCT to discuss the subpoena. ECF 9-1, Ex. 1. UCT agreed to provide Realtek a two-week extension to respond to the subpoena—from March 3, 2025 to March 17, 2025—and provided specific information regarding the Realtek components for which UCT seeks discovery. ECF 9-2, Ex. 2. On March 25, 2025, UCT contacted Realtek to rеquest a time for a meet and confer to discuss UCT‘s intended motion to compel Realtek to comply with the subpoena. ECF 9-3, Ex. 3. Realtek responded with objections and its intention to file the instant motion to quash. ECF 9-4, Ex. 4. The parties discussed filing a joint discovery letter but were unable to come to an agreement. ECF 9-6, Ex. 6.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A party may obtain discovery of a non-party by serving a subpoena pursuant to
Under
On a motion to compel compliance with a
In Realtek‘s motion to quash subpoena, Realtek argues (1) UCT failed to properly serve the subpoena, (2) the subpoena is improper under
A. The Court excuses Realtek‘s untimely objections.
Written objections to a
UCT argues that Realtek waived its right to object to the subpoena because Realtek failed to timely object to or otherwise respond to the subpoena. ECF 8, at 6. Realtek‘s deadline to respond to the subpoena was March 17, 2025, but Realtek did not submit its objections and responses until March 25, 2025—eight days after the deadline to respond. Realtek concedes that it failed to timely object to the subpoena. ECF 1, at 10. However, Realtek argues that its inadvertent delay should be excused. Id.
In unusual circumstances and for good cause, the failure to timely object will not bar consideration of objections to a
Here, the Court finds that the second and third exceptions apply. There is no indication that Realtek acted in bad faith. Realtek counsel and UCT counsel were in contact concerning compliance with the subpoena prior to Realtek challenging its legal basis. The parties were in contact from February 25, 2025 to March 28, 2025, when the instant motion was filed. See ECF 9-1, -2, -3, -4. The parties discussed compliance with the subpoena, with UCT agreeing to provide Realtek with a two-week extension to respond. See ECF 9-2, Ex. 2. Realtek even requested “any authority UCT has for enforcing a
Although Realtek missed the deadline to respond to the subpoena, the Court finds that this does not rise to the level of bad faith. Realtek immediately responded with objections when reminded of its obligations under the subpoena by UCT. ECF 9-4, Ex. 4. Courts have exсused inadvertence when parties had been in contact concerning compliance. See Clapp, 2014 WL 3784112, at *3 (excusing waiver after finding that non-party acted in good faith when she communicated with opposing counsel, and upon discovering that no objections had been filed to the subpoenas, promptly obtained counsel who filed a motion to quash, albeit with the incorrect court); Leader Techs., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. C1080028MISCJWHRL, 2010 WL 761296, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2010) (excusing waiver aftеr finding that written objections were one day late but parties had been in contact regarding compliance); HI.Q, Inc. v. ZeetoGroup, LLC, No. MC 22CV1440-LL-MDD, 2022 WL 17345784, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022) (excusing waiver after finding that non-party had sent objections to the wrong counsel and the wrong address but parties had been in contact regarding compliance).
B. UCT‘s alternate service on Realtek was proper.
Realtek argues that UCT failed to properly serve the subpoena on Realtek under
However, under a growing minority approach, courts have permitted parties to serve
Here, UCT attempted three methods of service. Lenovo, No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG, ECF 97 at 3. First, UCT attempted to serve Realtek with a subpoena in Taiwan at Realtek‘s listed address and on Realtek‘s listed agent for acceptanсe of service, but that attempt was rejected by Realtek. Id. Second, UCT attempted to serve Realtek‘s counsel in another pending case but never received a response. Id. at 3-4. And third, UCT sought and obtained a letter rogatory from the Court but again received no response. Id. at 4.
After these attempts, UCT sought leave of the Eastern District of Texas court for alternate service under
In reply briefing, Realtek for the first time asserts an argument challenging personal jurisdiction. ECF 23, at 3-4. The Ninth Circuit has established that the “district court need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007); Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that “arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived“); SiteLock, 338 F.R.D. at 156 (declining to consider personal jurisdiction argument raised for the first time in reply brief). For this reason alone, the Court rejects Realtek‘s belated personal jurisdiction arguments.
Notwithstanding, Realtek‘s persоnal jurisdiction argument relies on Netlist, 2023 WL 2940043, at *1. Netlist found that service of a third-party subpoena under
However, Netlist dealt with a motion to compel compliance with subpoena. Id. There, Netlist, the subpoenaing party, filed the miscellaneous matter, seeking to compel Montage Shanghai tо comply with the subpoena. Id. at *1. In contrast, here, Realtek is the party that filed this miscellaneous matter. See ECF 1. Realtek seems to unintentionally be making an argument in favor of UCT. A party seeking to quash subpoena would not argue that the court they seek relief from lacks jurisdiction to provide them such relief. The Court finds Realtek‘s reliance on Netlist to be unpersuasive in the context of the instant motion to quash. Further, UCT‘s motion to compel was filed after Realtek filed its motion to quash before this Court. See ECF 8. The Court finds that UCT properly served Realtek through alternate service under
Realtek next argues that UCT cannot compel production in California because Realtek is located in Taiwan. ECF 1, at 8. Under
Here, the subpoena identifies the place of compliance as 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300, Redwood Shores, CA 94065. ECF 1-4, Ex. C to Speegle Decl., at 2. The parties do not dispute that Realtek‘s principal place of business is in Taiwan. Nevertheless, UCT argues that Realtek regularly transacts business with its U.S. subsidiaries and has numerous employees within 100-miles of the place of compliance. ECF 8, at 12.
In its 2023 annual report, Realtek represented that it “has sales or R&D teams in . . . the United States. . . .” Lenovo, No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG, ECF 82-4 at 4. Realtek lists affiliated companies Cortina Access, Inc. and Ubilinx Technology Inc. as “R&D and technical support.” Id. at 108. Both Cortina Access Inc. and Ubilinx Technology Inc. are headquartered within 100 miles of the listed place of compliance on the subpoena. ECF 8, at 12. UCT argues that because Realtek‘s affiliated companies that function as R&D and technical support operate within the 100-mile limit, the Court should compel production. Id.
Like in Netlist, the requested discovery must be produced by Realtek—not Cortina Access, Inc. and Ubilinx Technology Inc. Simply having corporate affiliates within 100-miles of the place of compliance is not sufficient to overcome the geographical limitations of
UCT also argues that Realtek has employees within the United States, including persons located in California within 100 miles of the listed place of compliance of the subpoena. ECF 8, at 12. In support of this argument, UCT identifies eight LinkedIn profiles of persons that state they are employed by Realtek and reside in the United States. Id. at 12-13.
Realtek asserts that it has no employees in the United States, notwithstanding the LinkedIn profiles. ECF 23, at 10. Realtek argues these are likely employees of affiliated companies that are inсorrectly identifying their employer as Realtek. Id. At least four of the eight identified profiles have corrected their profiles to indicate that they in fact work for Ubilinx Technology Inc. Id. at Ex. G. On this matter, the Court finds that the remaining four LinkedIn profiles do not support a finding that Realtek has employees in the United States. Further, simply having employees within 100-miles of the place of compliance by itself is not dispositive in overcoming
The Court notes that UCT is not without any avenue for relief. UCT may still pursue discovery from Realtek through the letters rogatory process.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the motion to quash subpoena and DENIES the cross-motion to compel.
This Order resolves ECF 1 and 8.
The Clerk of the Court is ordered to terminate the matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 4, 2025
TRINA L. THOMPSON
United States District Judge