Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Watkins Manufacturing Corporation filed four patent infringement suits in the Southern District of California on August 5, 2026, against Guangzhou Weili Trading Co., Ltd., Liuyang Guanyang Trading Co., Ltd., Xinxiang Junhui, and Zhangxuxu. Watkins alleges each defendant sells infringing products through an Amazon storefront under the brands Kintillate (Weili), PRFCTTY (Liuyang), Succlin (Xinxiang), and MELULUA (Zhangxuxu). The court consolidated the cases on October 8, 2026, with the Weili case as lead. No defendant has appeared, so the motions were unopposed and decided on the papers.
According to declarations from Watkins's counsel, the storefronts list no email address or U.S. address, only a Chinese-language address in China. Counsel used translation tools, internet and social media searches, a paid address-verification service, Chinese company records, maps, and a Chinese vendor, yet could not verify any defendant's address. USPTO trademark records listed different names and addresses, and U.S. trademark counsel named for Weili, Liuyang, and Xinxiang said they did not represent those defendants in this matter. On September 8, 2026, counsel sent the complaint and summons to each defendant through Amazon's messaging system. Amazon confirmed sending and later reported the inquiries closed. Counsel also emailed addresses tied to the Kintillate, Succlin, and MELULUA trademark owners in Chinese records and received no error message. Weili then changed its storefront name and address, and the new details did not appear connected to Weili.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted all four motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), asking whether the method violates an international agreement, satisfies due process, and is necessary. China is a Hague Convention signatory, but the Convention does not apply where the address of the person to be served is unknown. Finding Watkins reasonably diligent in seeking addresses, the court held the addresses unknown, so the Convention did not bar court-directed service.
On due process, the court found Amazon messaging reasonably calculated to give notice. Each seller has a unique, unchanging Merchant ID and must maintain a messaging account, no defendant listed accurate contact information, and each apparently received and reviewed the message, enough to close it, with no sign of failed delivery. A footnote added that Weili's later name and address change made actual notice even more likely. For email, the court found the addresses likely valid because nothing bounced back and likely in use given the defendants' online businesses and apparent evasion, although Watkins named no specific address. The court also found alternative service necessary to avoid further delay given documented, fruitless efforts to locate elusive defendants.
The order directs Watkins to serve all four defendants through Amazon messaging, and Weili, Xinxiang, and Zhangxuxu also by email, within seven days, and to file a certificate of service within three court days of service. Watkins did not seek email service on Liuyang. The order decides service only, not the merits.
Key Takeaways
- The Hague Convention does not apply when a defendant's address is unknown, but the movant must show reasonably diligent efforts to learn it.
- Amazon messaging can satisfy due process when the record indicates the message likely reached the seller, here through inferences from closed inquiries and the absence of any failed delivery.
- The court allowed email service using addresses found in Chinese trademark records, relying on the absence of bounce-back messages and the defendants' online businesses.
- Service under Rule 4(f)(3) is not a last resort, but the movant must still show necessity, which documented and fruitless location efforts satisfied here.
- The relief was defendant-specific: Liuyang may be served only through Amazon messaging because Watkins did not request email service on it.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order in a patent case, so it has persuasive value at most and does not bind other courts. It applies Ninth Circuit authority, including Rio Properties, to marketplace sellers whose real addresses cannot be found, and it relies on out-of-district decisions for Amazon messaging service.
The order turned on detailed declarations about the address search, the delivered Amazon message, and the email records, and no defendant opposed. Whether service is ultimately effective, and whether any defendant will appear or challenge it, remains open.