Yiwu Langxun Electronic Commerce Co, Ltd v. John Doe Corporations

+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
YIWU LANGXUN
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS, et
al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 25-11509
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
(ECF No. 14)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Yiwu Langxun Electronic Commerce
Co, Ltd’s (“Plaintiff” or “Yiwu”) Motion for Alternative Service (ECF No. 14).
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On May 22, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this patent infringement case by filing
their Complaint against numerous “Corporations, Limited Liability Companies,
Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations” as identified in Schedule A
(“Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 5). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been
and are infringing Plaintiff’s patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), “literally and/or
under the doctrine of equivalents,” by making, using, offering for sale, importing,
and/or selling infringing products without a license or authorization from Plaintiff.
Case 4:25-cv-11509-FKB-CI ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 7

2
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants are acting in concert, either directly or by
obtaining the infringing products from a common source or related sources or
engaging in the infringing activities at the suggestion or direction of a common
source or related sources. For example, Plaintiff asserts that several of the
Defendant companies operate under similar names, some Defendants share
addresses or are in the same or nearby buildings, some Defendants sell infringing
products under multiple online stores purporting to be different companies but are
in actuality a single company, and many Defendants use identical photographs or
other marketing materials in their product listings despite purporting to be different
companies.
The Court notes that in Schedule A, Plaintiff identified 57 potential
defendants, and to date, only Defendants Wokceer-US, Asee’m, Putros-US, and
Fomcet have appeared in this case. (ECF Nos. 5, 10).
II. 	DISCUSSION
On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed their Motion for Alternative Service
(ECF No. 14), seeking to serve 18 Defendants by email. Plaintiff indicates that
they served limited discovery on Amazon to ascertain identifying information of
all 57 Defendants, including their addresses. Id. Plaintiff has identified 18
Defendants (“Alternative Service Defendants”) who lack a physical address for
service, and notes that Amazon sellers are not subject to any effective verification
Case 4:25-cv-11509-FKB-CI ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 7

3
process when creating an online store, which has allowed the Alternative Service
Defendants to mask their identities. Id. Plaintiff conducted research on all
Defendants and determined that the Alternative Service Defendants are Chinese
entities whose available addresses “do not correspond to any building or location
in China, or correspond to a building or location that appears to be that of another
company.” (ECF Nos. 14, 14-1). Plaintiff contends that “email service is likely to
apprise these Defendants of this action, because they are online companies that
interact with Amazon by email.” Id.
Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure articulates the authorized
methods for service of process on individual defendants residing in foreign
countries. Rule 4(f)(1) authorizes service in a “manner that is reasonably
calculated to give notice” by means consistent with international agreements, such
as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial
and Extrajudicial Documents, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361. Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(f)(1). Rule 4(f)(2) authorizes service by a method that is reasonably calculated
to give notice when there is no internationally agreed upon means of service or
does not specify other means of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2). Rule 4(f)(3)
authorizes service “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as
the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3).
Case 4:25-cv-11509-FKB-CI ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 7

4
“A district court is afforded ‘wide discretion’ to order service under Rule
4(f)(3) in order to enable the court to fit the manner of service to the facts and
circumstances of a particular case.” U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v.
Majestic Enters. Collision Repair, Inc., 2011 WL 767890, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Feb.
28, 2011). Courts have found that Rule 4(f) “does not require a party to serve
process by the means specified in subsections 4(f)(1) and (f)(2) before a court
permits alternative service by ‘other means’ under Rule 4(f)(3)” and that “there is
no hierarchy among the subsections in Rule 4(f).” BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP v.
Gooshelly, 613 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1014 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (quoting Elsevier, Inc. v.
Siew Yee Chew, 287 F. Supp. 3d 374, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Advanced Aerofoil
Techs., AG v. Todaro, 2012 WL 299959, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012)).
District courts within this Circuit have held that service via email is not
prohibited under the Hague Convention, but the Sixth Circuit has not addressed
this issue. See Choon’s Design LLC v. Aysum Life, et al., No. 2:24-CV-13321-
FKB-APP, 2025 WL 2556596, at *20 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 14, 2025) Binzhiyuan
(Hong Kong) Paper Prods. Ltd. v. Xi, No. 25-10716, 2025 WL 870131, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. Mar. 20, 2025); Noco Co., Inc. v. Zhejiang Quingyou Elec. Commerce Co.,
No. 1:20CV1170, 2021 WL 374617, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2021); BBK Tobacco
& Foods, LLP, 613 F. Supp. 3d at 1014; Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Marione,
No. 09-14617, 2010 WL 11545316, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2010).
Case 4:25-cv-11509-FKB-CI ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 7

5
Here, Alternative Service Defendants are in China but cannot be served
under the Hague Convention because their true addresses are still unknown
following Plaintiff’s research which revealed that the addresses provided to
Amazon are either incorrect or fake. (ECF Nos. 14, 14-1); see, e.g., BBK Tobacco
& Foods, LLP, 613 F. Supp. 3d at 1014 (citing Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, 2010
WL 11545316, at *4 (“The Court concludes that addresses for defendants [. . .] are
unknown and that the Hague Convention should not apply to service of process on
these defendants”) (citations omitted)). Plaintiff also asserts that emailing
Alternative Service Defendants is reasonably calculated to give them effective
notice because Plaintiff obtained their email addresses from the online platform,
Amazon, where they conduct business. (ECF No. 14). The Court agrees. Plaintiff
has shown that Alternative Service Defendants lack a physical address for service
and that they are online companies that are known to interact and conduct business
with Amazon by email.
The Court finds that service by email, under the particular facts here, is
reasonably calculated to give Alternative Service Defendants effective notice of
the claim against them. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s request to
effectuate service on the eighteen (18) identified Alternative Service Defendants
by sending a copy of the complaint and summons to the emails identified in the
declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 14-1). Additionally,
Case 4:25-cv-11509-FKB-CI ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 5 of 7

6
consistent with the other rulings in this District, the service emails must be sent
with a read-receipt or a third-party confirmation of receipt. See, e.g., Binzhiyuan
(Hong Kong) Paper Prods. Ltd., 2025 WL 870131, at *1; BBK Tobacco & Foods,
LLP, 613 F. Supp. 3d at 1014; Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, 2010 WL 11545316,
at *4.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, upon consideration of the motion, for the reasons as stated, and
for good cause, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service
(ECF No. 14) be and is hereby GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may effectuate service on ONLY the
eighteen (18) identified Alternative Service Defendants by sending a copy of the
complaint and summons to the emails identified in the declaration in support of
Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 14-1), and by using the read-receipt function or an
email service company that will supply proof of service.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are
required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as
error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which
Case 4:25-cv-11509-FKB-CI ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 6 of 7

7
the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to
a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in
effect unless it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich.
Local Rule 72.2.
Date: November 4, 2025 	s/Curtis Ivy, Jr.
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-11509-FKB-CI ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 7 of 7