UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : NINGBO LANGYAN AGEL E-COMMERCE : LTD., : : 25-CV-00058 (JAV) Plaintiff, : : MEMORANDUM -v- : OPINION AND ORDER : THE CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY : COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS AND : UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS : IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”., : : Defendants. : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge:

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants operate online marketplaces, including on Amazon, that sell products that infringe on its registered design patents. ECF No. 8. (“Am. Compl.”), ¶¶ 1-4. On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for alternative service pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3), seeking leave to serve Defendant “Anhui Ergocomfy Home Technology Co., Ltd d/b/a Bettahome” (“Defendant No. 3”) and Defendant “lou di yuan fa ke ji you xian gong si d/b/a Realkant” (“Defendant No. 7”) via email. ECF No. 78 (“Mot. Alt. Serv.”) at 2-3. Both of these Defendants appear to be based in China. Id. Plaintiff claims that the physical addresses for Defendant Nos. 3 and 7 are not known, since there is a contradiction between the sellers’ addresses as listed on their website and Amazon storefront page, on the one hand, and the addresses provided by Amazon for these Defendants through discovery. Plaintiff argues that as a result, the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Extrajudicial Documents (the “Hague Convention”) does not apply. Mot. Alt. Serv. at 2-3. Plaintiff asserts that this inconsistency makes the addresses of each Defendant “unreliable.” Id. at 4.

As Plaintiff has not undertaken sufficient efforts to ascertain whether the physical addresses it has obtained are in fact associated with either Defendant, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. LEGAL STANDARDS

Rule 4(f) authorizes service on a defendant in a foreign country by means authorized by “any internationally agreed means of service,” such as the Hague Convention, by method in accordance with that jurisdiction’s laws, or “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders,” so long as it is “method that is reasonably calculated to give notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f). Moreover, Rule 4(f) treats all subparts as equal, meaning that parties need not “exhaust” the efforts listed before Rule 4(f)(3), to move for alternative service. See Gang Chen v. China Green Agric., Inc., No. 20 CV 9232 (MKV),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2021).

Rule 4(f)(3) allows a court to “fashion [a] means of service on an individual in a foreign country, so long as the ordered means of service (1) is not prohibited by international agreement; and (2) comports with constitutional notions of due process.” Front Row Fund I, L.P. ex rel. ChoiceWORX, Inc. v. Gross, No. 23-cv-02255 (JHR) (JLC),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2023) (citation omitted). In evaluating whether service comports with due process, “[a] court must . . . determine that the proposed method of service is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to give actual notice to the party whose interests are to be affected by the suit or proceeding, and to afford him an adequate opportunity to be heard.”

United States v. Mrvic,

, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (citation omitted). DISCUSSION Rule 4(f)(3) requires a two-part analysis, first addressing whether the ordered means of service is not prohibited by international agreement, and secondly, analyzing whether service comports with constitutional due process. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong of this test, the motion is

denied. Defendant Nos. 3 and 7 appear to be located in China. Both the United States and China are signatories to the Hague Convention. Service by email on defendants in China is prohibited by the Hague Convention. Smart Study Co., LTD. v. Acuteye- US,

, 1392-93 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2022). But the Hague Convention does not apply “where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known.” Advanced Access Content Sys. Licensing

Adm'r, LLC v. Shen, No. 14 CV 1112,

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018). Plaintiff argues that the Hague Convention does not apply here because the information it has regarding Defendants’ physical addresses is “unreliable.” An address is “not known” within the meaning of the Hague Convention “if the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to discover a physical address for service of process and was unsuccessful in doing so.” Advanced Access Content Sys. Licensing Adm'r, LLC,

, at *4. Reasonable diligence means that plaintiff has utilized the tools at its disposal in an attempt to find a current physical address, including discovery, researching the defendant’s website or other

internet sources, or conducted in-person investigations. See Smart Study, 620 F. Supp. 3d at 1391. Reaching out to an individual’s shipper can also demonstrate diligence. See Kelly Toys Holdings, No. 22 CV 558 (PAE),

, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2022). The Court must determine if Plaintiff used “reasonable diligence” in attempting to locate valid physical addresses for the two Defendants that are the

subject of this motion. Plaintiff used expedited discovery to locate the address that Defendants Nos. 3 and 7 provided to their shipper, Amazon, in addition to their publicly listed addresses on their website and Amazon page. Mot. Alt. Serv. at 4-5. Because the address listed on their Amazon storefront is different than the address provided by Amazon through discovery, Plaintiff argues that neither address is “reliable.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff has produced evidence calling into question the validity of the address

listed on Defendant No. 3’s website, by providing a screenshot showing that location would fall within a government building complex. Id. at 6. Yet Plaintiff can point to no other steps it has taken to determine whether any of the other addresses it has obtained through discovery or its internet searches are actually associated with Defendants, including the address provided by Amazon with respect to Defendant No. 3. Plaintiff simply assumes that, because its efforts have yielded different addresses for each Defendant, none can be presumed to be valid. Such assumptions do not constitute reasonable diligence. Plaintiff has not, for example, attempted to send registered mail to these addresses, dispatched an investigator to the locations, or otherwise done online research to verify whether these addresses were valid. See, e.g., Zuru (Singapore) Pte., Lid. v. Individuals Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 22 CV 2483 (LGS),

, at *2 (6.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2022) (finding reasonable diligence where plaintiffs conducted further online research, sent mail to the addresses, and conducted in-person visits to ascertain whether any of the physical addresses were correct and usable for service); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Veles Lid., No. 06 CV 2988 GBD,

, at *3 (6.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2007) (approving service of online retailers by email and fax, where service by mail to listed physical addresses had been attempted but was returned). In the absence of such efforts, the Court cannot say that the addresses of Defendant Nos. 3 and 7 are unknown. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for alternative service on Defendant Nos. 3 and 7is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 78.

SO ORDERED. ~ f He Dated: July 24, 2025 YY Me, Vb New York, New York JEANNETTE A. VARGAS United States District Judge