Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SHARP CORPORATION
1 Takumi-cho, Sakai-ku, Sakai City,
Osaka 590-8522 Japan
and
COMPLAINT
SHARP ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,
100 Paragon Drive
Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Case No. ____________________

Plaintiffs
v.
HISENSE USA CORPORATION
7310 McGinnis Ferry Road
Suwanee, Georgia 30024
and
HISENSE INTERNATIONAL (HONG
KONG) AMERICA INVESTMENT CO.
LTD.
Room 3101-05,
Singga Commercial Centre, No. 148
Connaught Road West,
Hong Kong, China.
Defendants.

Plaintiffs Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation (collectively, “Sharp”),
by and through their undersigned counsel, file this Complaint against Defendants Hisense USA
Corporation (“Hisense USA”) and Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investment Co.
Ltd. (“Hisense International”) (collectively, “Hisense”), making the following allegations based

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 2 of 14

on personal knowledge and upon information and belief.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This case involves a request for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the

enforceability of a Gag Order issued in a private arbitration before the Singapore International
Arbitration Centre.
2.

Sharp seeks a declaration from the Court (1) confirming Sharp’s First

Amendment rights against prior restraints and to petition the Government, and (2) enjoining any
efforts by Hisense to enforce the Gag Order in the United States.
3.

Sharp and Hisense are engaged in an arbitration pending with the Singapore

International Arbitration Centre.
4.

The arbitrator has issued a Gag Order prohibiting only Sharp—and not Hisense—

from making statements about the dispute or petitioning “regulatory authorities, except as
required by law,” regarding issues relating to the dispute,
.
5.

The Gag Order is contrary to the public policy of the United States embodied in

the First Amendment of the Constitution, including: (1) the public policy that prohibits a prior
restraint on speech absent extraordinary circumstances, and (2) the public policy that favors the
right to petition the Government.
6.

Sharp seeks an order declaring that the Gag Order against Sharp is not

recognizable or enforceable in the United States.
PARTIES
7.

Plaintiff Sharp Corporation is incorporated and existing under the laws of Japan

with a principal place of business at 1 Takumi-cho, Sakai-ku, Sakai City, Osaka 590-8522 Japan.

2

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 3 of 14

8.

Plaintiff Sharp Electronics Corporation is a New York corporation with a

principal place of business at 100 Paragon Drive, Montvale, New Jersey 07645.
9.

Defendant Hisense USA Corporation is a Georgia corporation with a principal

place of business at 7310 McGinnis Ferry Road, Suwanee, Georgia 30024.
10.

Defendant Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investment Co. Ltd. is

incorporated under the laws of the People’s Republic of China with a principal place of business
at Room 3101-05, Singga Commercial Centre, No. 148 Connaught Road West, Hong Kong,
China. Hisense International is affiliated with Hisense Co., Ltd., which is wholly-owned by a
political subdivision of the Chinese government.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under: (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because

there is a federal question regarding the enforceability of the Gag Order under the First
Amendment to the Constitution; (2) 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 because Plaintiff seeks a declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief; (3) 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because this is a dispute between citizens of
different states and in which citizens of a foreign state are additional parties, and the amount in
controversy—the value of Sharp’s First Amendment rights that are restricted, and the resulting
damage therefrom—exceeds the sum or value of $75,000; and (4) 9 U.S.C. § 203 because this
action arises under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), which is codified in the Federal
Arbitration Act at 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208.
12.

On information and belief, Hisense USA and Hisense International are subject to

personal jurisdiction in this District because they both conduct and do business within the United
States and this District. Hisense International executed a License Agreement that provided an

3

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 4 of 14

exclusive license to Hisense International to use Sharp’s trademarks to manufacture, assemble,
promote, market, distribute, and sell products in North America. Hisense International states that
it is recognized as a “world leading provider” of televisions, and “its products are sold in over
130 countries and regions throughout the world.” http://www.hisense.co.za/about-hisense.
Hisense International “serves customers worldwide.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/HISENZ:HK-hisense-international-hong-kongco-ltd.
13.

Hisense USA specifically states on its own website the following: “All across

North America, we manufacture and distribute televisions, refrigerators, air conditioners,
dehumidifiers, beverage coolers and freezers.” https://www.hisense-usa.com/our-company.
Similarly, on information and belief, both Hisense International and Hisense USA directly or
through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others) ship, distribute, offer for
sale, sell, and advertise products in this District, including on their nationally accessible websites
and in retail stores in this District.
14.

Additionally, on information and belief, consumers from anywhere in the country,

including this District, can purchase Hisense products by clicking on an external link from
Hisense’s nationally accessible websites. On information and belief, Hisense International and
Hisense USA have purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of conducting business in
the United States, and more specifically in this District. Thus, the court has personal jurisdiction
over both parties.
15.

Venue lies in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 9 U.S.C. § 204 because

Defendant Hisense International does not reside in the United States and both Defendants are
subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this action. There is no other judicial

4

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 5 of 14

district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. The Federal
Communications Commission headquarters is also located at 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20554. The Gag Order at issue precludes Sharp from communicating with this Washingtonbased agency, as well as other relevant federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission
(“FTC”) and members of Congress involved in oversight of these issues.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I.

THE PARTIES
16.

Sharp is a well-recognized, trusted electronics brand, and a world-renowned

television manufacturer.
17.

Sharp is famous for its innovation in LCD televisions, having developed a four

color display (red, green, blue, yellow) trademarked QUATTRON, and a higher end series of
televisions with the brand name AQUOS, that have been sold around the world for many years.
18.

The Sharp brand name and trademark is instantly recognizable to consumers

everywhere, and connotes to them dependability, innovation and other positive qualities.
19.

Hisense is a Chinese company that is relatively unknown in the United States.

20.

Hisense began selling televisions in the United States very recently and

communicates on its website to consumers: “[D]on’t feel bad if you haven’t heard of us. We’re
new here.” https://www.hisense-usa.com/our-company.
21.

In 2015, Sharp restructured its television operations to adjust to an increasing

competitive environment in the flat screen television industry.
22.

In doing so, Sharp decided to sell a production factory in Mexico to Hisense.

23.

Sharp agreed to include a limited license to the Sharp trademarks in the purchase

price of the factory.

5

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 6 of 14

II.

THE LICENSE AGREEMENT
24.

Sharp and Hisense are parties to a License Agreement dated July 31, 2015 (the

“License Agreement”).

29.

Hisense began selling Sharp-branded televisions in the United States in January

2016.

6

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 7 of 14

IV.

THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
40.

On April 24, 2017, Hisense filed a notice of arbitration and sought emergency

interim relief to prevent Sharp from terminating the License Agreement.

7

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 8 of 14

44.

On May 9, 2017, the emergency arbitrator issued an “emergency” interim award

(the “Gag Order”).
45.

A true and correct copy of the Gag Order is attached as Exhibit 1 and has been

filed under seal.

47.

Paragraph 135(iii) of the Gag Order states as follows:
[Sharp] shall refrain from, directly or indirectly through its
affiliates, disparaging [Hisense] and/or disrupting its business,
including by making public statements or press releases about this
arbitration and/or the dispute between [Hisense] and [Sharp,] or
approaching [Hisense’s] business associates and/or other third
parties (including, but not limited to, [Hisense’s] customers,
suppliers, content and service providers, and/or regulatory
authorities, except as required by law), in respect of any matters
that are to be addressed in arbitration under the [License
Agreement].

49.

Sharp objected to the issuance of the Gag Order.

8

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 9 of 14

50.

Sharp wishes to communicate with regulatory agencies and other business entities

about
.
51.

In addition, the Gag Order is so broad that Sharp fears it may be at risk of

violating its terms when it speaks to consumers, retailers, and media organizations about

in conjunction with the recently announced plans by major investor Foxconn to open up a $10
billion LCD display screen plant in the United States.
V.

PRIOR RESTRAINTS ARE DISFAVORED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
52.

The term “prior restraint” is used to describe administrative and judicial orders

forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such
communications are to occur.
53.

Gag orders are generally considered impermissible prior restraints on free speech.

54.

The First Amendment provides greater protection from prior restraints than from

subsequent punishments.
55.

For this reason, there is a heavy presumption against the constitutional validity of

a prior restraint.
56.

The Supreme Court has held that the Government must show the most compelling

reasons for any prior restraint on speech.
VI.

THE GAG ORDER VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS
AGAINST PRIOR RESTRAINTS OF SPEECH AND TO PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT
57.

Sharp has First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the Government.

9

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 10 of 14

58.

Sharp wishes to make statements regarding

.
59.

Sharp also wishes to make statements to consumers, retailers, media

organizations, and others about these same issues as well as its own plans for innovation in the
high end television market.
60.

The Gag Order attempts to infringe on Sharp’s First Amendment rights to do so.

61.

The arbitrator’s only stated basis for the Gag Order is that if Sharp says anything

62.

In the United States, companies have a First Amendment right to engage in robust

commercial speech and to

63.

Sharp never agreed to arbitrate its First Amendment rights.

64.

The arbitrator’s Gag Order is not supported by a compelling interest as required

by the First Amendment.
VII.

THE GAG ORDER IS CONTRADICTORY TO U.S. PUBLIC POLICY AND
SHOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED OR ENFORCED
65.

A copy of a communication that Sharp wishes to make to the FCC is attached as

Exhibit 2 and has been filed under seal.
66.
67.

If Sharp is prohibited from communicating with the government and the public
, Sharp’s First Amendment

10

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 11 of 14

rights will be infringed and Sharp’s reputation will suffer
.
VIII. SHARP DOES NOT SEEK TO LITIGATE ISSUES SUBJECT TO
ARBITRATION

.
.
70.

Sharp does not seek to litigate those issues here.

71.

Sharp only seeks an order permitting Sharp to
.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
(Declaratory Judgment Under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.)

72.

Sharp re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all of

the preceding paragraphs.
73.

An actual controversy exists as to whether the Gag Order is enforceable in the

United States.
74.

A declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to affirm that any

communications between Sharp with the government, courts, public, or media are permitted.
75.

Accordingly, Sharp seeks, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, a judgment

from this Court declaring: (a) that Paragraph 135(iii) of the Gag Order is unenforceable as a
matter of law because it violates public policy; and (b) the Gag Order cannot preclude Plaintiffs
from exercising their First Amendment rights to petition the Government
and to communicate with, and respond to legitimate

11

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 12 of 14

questions from, consumers, retailers, trade groups and associations, media organizations, and
others
COUNT II
(Injunctive Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2202)
76.

Sharp re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all of

the preceding paragraphs.
77.

The Gag Order’s prior restraint on Sharp’s First Amendment rights damages

Sharp’s ability to convey

78.

The Gag Order’s prior restraint on Sharp’s First Amendment rights

79.

Sharp has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable

injury to its First Amendment rights, and both a balancing of the equities and the public interest
favor the issuance of an injunction against Hisense.
80.

Sharp requests that the Court enjoin Hisense from taking any action to enforce the

Gag Order in the United States to prevent or to prohibit Sharp from exercising its First
Amendment rights.
COUNT III
(Request to Refuse Recognition and Enforcement
Under New York Convention, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208)
81.

Sharp re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all of

the preceding paragraphs.
82.

The United States is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the New York Convention.
12

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 13 of 14

83.

The New York Convention is codified at chapter two of the Federal Arbitration

Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208.
84.

The New York Convention requires courts of contracting states to give effect to

private agreements to arbitrate and to recognize and enforce arbitration awards made in other
contracting states.
85.

Under the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement of an arbitral

award may be refused if the Court finds that recognition or enforcement “would be contrary to
the public policy of that country.”
86.

Courts do not, and are not required to, recognize or enforce foreign orders that are

contrary to the public policy of the United States.
87.

The Gag Order is contrary to the public policy of the United States embodied in

the First Amendment of the Constitution, including the public policy that prohibits a prior
restraint on speech absent extraordinary circumstances, and the public policy that favors the right
of American citizens to petition their Government.
88.

Sharp seeks an order declaring that the Gag Order on the parties is not

recognizable or enforceable in the United States.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
A.

Enter judgment declaring: (a) that Paragraph 135(iii) of the Gag Order is
unenforceable because it violates public policy; (b) the Gag Order does not
preclude Plaintiffs from exercising their First Amendment rights to petition the
Government

and to

communicate with, and respond to legitimate questions from, consumers,

13

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 14 of 14

retailers, trade groups and associations, media organizations, and others
;
and
B.

Provide for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants
from enforcing the Gag Order in the United States; and

C.

Grant Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: August 15, 2017

/s/ Randall K. Miller
Randall K. Miller (D.C. Bar No. 460682)
Nicholas M. DePalma (D.C. Bar No. 974664)
VENABLE LLP
600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
(703) 905-1449
rkmiller@venable.com
nmdepalma@venable.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Sharp Corporation and Sharp
Electronics Corporation

14

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1-1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 1 of 1

Exhibit 1
(Lodged Under Seal)
Sharp Corporation, et al. v. Hisense USA Corporation, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1-2 Filed 08/15/17 Page 1 of 1

Exhibit 2
(Lodged Under Seal)
Sharp Corporation, et al. v. Hisense USA Corporation, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1-3 Filed 08/15/17 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS-44 (Rev. 6/17 DC)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Õ"øÆ% ›±Æ%±Æø¨)±*
Õ"øÆ% ¤¥ª.¨Æ±*)./ ›±Æ%±Æø¨)±*

ÿ)/ª*/ª ÀÕfl ›±Æ%±Æø¨)±*
ÿ)/ª*/ª 3*¨ªÆ*ø¨)±*ø¥ ¯ÿ±*5 ’±*5˜ fl8ªÆ).ø 3*™ª/¨8ª*¨ ›±Ú
‘¨ºÚ
ËËËËË
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT _____________________
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

ÁÁÁÁÁ

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF _____________________
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

Œø*ºø¥¥ ”)¥¥ªÆÙ “)."±¥ø/ ‹ª–ø¥8ø
ª*ø楪 ‘‘–Ù ÍHH ”ø//ø."´/ª¨¨/ fl™ª*´ªÙ “…
…ø/")*5¨±*Ù ‹› ÓHHHÔ
ÈHÌÛÁHÎÛÔÏÏÁ
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX FOR

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

o
o

1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff
2 U.S. Government
Defendant

o
o

3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of
Parties in item III)

PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!
PTF
DFT

Citizen of this State
Citizen of Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

o1 o1
o2 o2
o3 o3

Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in This State
Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business in Another State
Foreign Nation

PTF

DFT

o4 o4
o5 o5
o6 o6

IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a corresponding Nature of Suit)

o

A. Antitrust
410 Antitrust

o

o

o

B. Personal Injury/
Malpractice
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product Liability
320 Assault, Libel & Slander
330 Federal Employers Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability
360 Other Personal Injury
362 Medical Malpractice
365 Product Liability
367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury Product Liability
368 Asbestos Product Liability

E. General Civil (Other)

Real Property
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
Personal Property
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal Property
Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability

C. Administrative Agency
Review
151 Medicare Act

Social Security
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
Other Statutes
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
890 Other Statutory Actions (If
Administrative Agency is
Involved)

OR
Bankruptcy
422 Appeal 27 USC 158
423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Prisoner Petitions
535 Death Penalty
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Conditions
560 Civil Detainee – Conditions
of Confinement
Property Rights
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
835 Patent – Abbreviated New
Drug Application
840 Trademark

o

o

D. Temporary Restraining
Order/Preliminary
Injunction

Any nature of suit from any category
may be selected for this category of
case assignment.
*(If Antitrust, then A governs)*

F. Pro Se General Civil
Federal Tax Suits
870 Taxes (US plaintiff or
defendant)
871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC
7609
Forfeiture/Penalty
625 Drug Related Seizure of
Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
Other Statutes
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
430 Banks & Banking
450 Commerce/ICC
Rates/etc.
460 Deportation

462 Naturalization
Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
470 Racketeer Influenced
& Corrupt Organization
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Satellite TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of State
Statutes
890 Other Statutory Actions
(if not administrative agency
review or Privacy Act)

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1-3 Filed 08/15/17 Page 2 of 2

o

G. Habeas Corpus/
2255

o

K. Labor/ERISA
(non-employment)
710 Fair Labor Standards Act
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations
740 Labor Railway Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

*(If pro se, select this deck)*

*(If pro se, select this deck)*

o

o

L. Other Civil Rights
(non-employment)
441 Voting (if not Voting Rights
Act)
443 Housing/Accommodations
440 Other Civil Rights
445 Americans w/Disabilities –
Employment
446 Americans w/Disabilities –
Other
448 Education

o

I. FOIA/Privacy Act
895 Freedom of Information Act
890 Other Statutory Actions
(if Privacy Act)

442 Civil Rights – Employment
(criteria: race, gender/sex,
national origin,
discrimination, disability, age,
religion, retaliation)

530 Habeas Corpus – General
510 Motion/Vacate Sentence
463 Habeas Corpus – Alien
Detainee

o

o

H. Employment
Discrimination

152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loan
(excluding veterans)

o

M. Contract
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of
Judgment
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholder’s Suits
190 Other Contracts
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

J. Student Loan

N. Three-Judge
Court
441 Civil Rights – Voting
(if Voting Rights Act)

V. ORIGIN

o 1 Original o 2 Removed o 3 Remanded
Proceeding

from State
Court

from Appellate
Court

o 4 Reinstated o 5 Transferred o 6 Multi-district o 7 Appeal to
or Reopened

from another
district (specify)

Litigation

District Judge
from Mag.
Judge

o 8 Multi-district
Litigation –
Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.)

Á ÀÚÕÚ›Ú yy ÓHÔÛÓHË Û ŒªØ´ª/¨ T±Æ ‹ª.¥øÆø¨±Æß ÷´º58ª*¨ æø/ªº ±* ª*T±Æ.ªøæ)¥)¨ß ±T T±Æª)5* ±ÆºªÆ
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS
ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $
JURY DEMAND:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY

(See instruction)

YES

ËÒÔÎÒÓHÔÈ
DATE: _________________________

NO

Check YES only if demanded in complaint

YES

Ë

NO

If yes, please complete related case form

Ò/ÒŒø*ºø¥¥ ’Ú ”)¥¥ªÆ
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD _________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44
Authority for Civil Cover Sheet

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services of pleadings or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the
Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed.
Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet.
I.

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: Use 11001 to indicate plaintiff if resident
of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States.

III.

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction
under Section II.

IV.

CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best
represents the primary cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only one category. You must also select one corresponding
nature of suit found under the category of the case.

VI.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primary cause.

VIII.

RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from
the Clerk’s Office.

Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form.

 Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1-4 Filed 08/15/17 Page 1 of 2

A0 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
District of Columbia 

Sharp Corporation
and
Sharp Electronics Corporation

 

Plainti?(s)
V.

Hisense USA Corporation
and
Hisense International (Hong Kong) America
Investment Co. Ltd.

Civil Action No.

 



Defendant(s)

SUMMON IN A CIVIL ACTION

Hisense USA Corporation
c/o Bin Liu, Registered Agent and CEO
7310 McGinnis Ferry Road, Suwanee GA 30024

TO: (Defendant?s name and address)

A lawsuit has been ?led against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an of?cer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff?s attorney,
whose name and address are: .

Randall Miller

Venable LLP
600 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20001

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must ?le your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

 

 

Signature of Clerk 0r Deputy Clerk

Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1-4 Filed 08/15/17 Page 2 of 2

A0 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

 

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be ?led with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

 

was received by me on (date)

 

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

 

on (date) or

 

 

CI 1 left the summons at the individual?s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

 

a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

 

on (date) and mailed a copy to the individual?s last known address; or

 

I served the summons on (name of individual) who is

 

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name oforganization)

 

 

 

 

on (date) or
I returned the summons unexecuted because or
Cl Other (specify):
My fees are for travel and for services, for a total of o_oo

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

 

 

Server?s signature

 

Printed name and title

 

Server?s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1-5 Filed 08/15/17 Page 1 of 2

A0 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
District of Columbia 

Sharp Corporation
and
Sharp Electronics Corporation

 

Plainti?(s)
V.

Hisense USA Corporation
and
Hisense International (Hong Kong) America
Investment Co. Ltd.

Civil Action No.

 



Defendant(s)

SUMMON IN A CIVIL ACTION

Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investment Co. Ltd.
c/o Bin Liu, Registered Agent and CEO, Hisense USA Corporation
7310 McGinnis Ferry Road, Suwanee GA 30024

TO: (Defendant?s name and address)

A lawsuit has been ?led against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an of?cer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff?s attorney,
whose name and address are: .

Randall Miller

Venable LLP
600 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20001

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must ?le your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

 

 

Signature of Clerk 0r Deputy Clerk

Case 1:17-cv-01648 Document 1-5 Filed 08/15/17 Page 2 of 2

A0 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

 

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be ?led with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

 

was received by me on (date)

 

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

 

on (date) or

 

 

CI 1 left the summons at the individual?s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

 

a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

 

on (date) and mailed a copy to the individual?s last known address; or

 

I served the summons on (name of individual) who is

 

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name oforganization)

 

 

 

 

on (date) or
I returned the summons unexecuted because or
Cl Other (specify):
My fees are for travel and for services, for a total of o_oo

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

 

 

Server?s signature

 

Printed name and title

 

Server?s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: