Robert Bosch Semiconductor LLC v. Aumos Technology, Inc.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT BOSCH SEMICONDUCTOR Case No. 25-cv-02387-HSG LLC, 8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, ISSUANCE OF LETTERS ROGATORY v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 22 & 23 AUMOS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant.

13 Plaintiff previously filed its Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory on June 25, 2025.

14 See Dkt. No. 20. The Court found that motion was deficient and (1) failed to ask the Court to take an action and to provide a basis for that action; (2) failed to explain why certain certificates were attached; and (3) failed to attach the related documents for certification. See Dkt. No. 21. The Court denied the motion and gave Plaintiff until August 11, 2025, to renew its motion in compliance with the applicable rules. Id. 19 Plaintiff timely renewed its motion. See Dkt. No. 22 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff requests that the Court sign and seal its Request for International Judicial Assistance. Id. at 1; Dkt. No. 23 (Plaintiff’s Request). Plaintiff will then transmit these documents to the U.S. Department of State, which will oversee transmission to Taiwan.1 Mot. at 2. Plaintiff has confirmed it will reimburse this Court, the courts of Taiwan, and the Department of State for any costs incurred and will deposit the necessary check with the Department of State. Id. Plaintiff also attached English and Mandarin copies of the operative complaint and the necessary documents for service. See Dkt.

1 See U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE – BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, Taiwan Judicial Assistance No. 23 at 2.

2 “Whether to issue [letters rogatory] is a matter of discretion for the court.” Barnes & Noble, Inc., No. 11-CV-02709-EMC, 2012 WL 1808849, at *2. “[T]he Northern District has previously granted letters rogatory in cases with Taiwanese defendants.” See Chung v. Chih-Mei, No. 22-CV-01983-BLF, 2022 WL 17584243, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2022). Plaintiff here has complied with the Court’s directions in refiling its motion, and the Court sees no reason not to exercise its discretion to grant it.

8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motions2 and directs the Clerk to affix the Court’s signature and seal to the forms. Dkt. No. 23. By November 17, 2025, Plaintiff must file a declaration and any supporting proof confirming that the Defendant has been served, or alternatively, a status report (1) detailing where its efforts to serve Defendant stand and (2) how much additional time it needs to serve Defendant.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated: 15 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 16 United States District Judge Plaintiff styles its Request for International Judicial Assistance as a “motion.” See Dkt. No. 23.