Federal Judiciary

Good Service Down Under

By Michael Smith

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Occupational & Medical Innovations, Ltd., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2008 WL 4287579(E.D.Tex. Sep 11, 2008) (NO. 6:08CV120)
Judge: Leonard Davis
Holding:  Defendant?s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) DENIED
This was a dispute over the sufficiency of service on an Australian corporation in a patent case.  Plaintiff initially served the defendant with a private process server, then through the Texas Secretary of State.  Judge Davis' opinion navigates the requirements of service on a foreign corporation, notes that Australia is not a signatory to the Hague Service Convention, and then explains the significance of that. 
Nine years of working on the service of process provisions in O'Connor's Federal Rules * Civil Trials has left me with a permanent phobia about service issues, so to avoid bursting into tears at my desk trying to sort out which sub-sub-sub provisions of Rule 4 are involved, implicated, referred to, adjudged, addressed, ridiculed or ignored, (not to mention what Australian state or national applies) let's just say that it all ends happily, with the judge pronouncing service sufficient and proper, and telling the plaintiff that all they have to do to go home is click their heels three times and say "G'day".
For some reason I now have a craving for barbecued shrimp...

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on September 23, 2008 (boomark / email).