Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. applied under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for permission to subpoena Advanced Standard Communication LLC for documents. Xiaomi sought a narrow set of materials for use in a patent-infringement action that ASC had brought against Xiaomi in the Unified Patent Court’s Munich Local Division.
Xiaomi asked the court to decide the application ex parte, emphasizing that courts may initially consider § 1782 applications without the respondent’s participation and that ASC could later challenge an authorized subpoena or seek reconsideration. After the court requested a more case-specific justification, Xiaomi acknowledged that it had no additional basis for ex parte treatment beyond the arguments already presented and agreed that it could serve ASC if necessary.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Xiaomi’s request for ex parte consideration. It held that Xiaomi’s confidence in the application’s merits, the practice of other courts, and ASC’s ability to challenge any later discovery order did not provide a persuasive, case-specific reason to depart from the adversarial process. The court emphasized that ex parte proceedings are exceptional and that Fifth Circuit precedent does not make ex parte consideration the routine or default procedure for § 1782 applications.
The court did not decide whether Xiaomi ultimately qualified for discovery under § 1782. Instead, it ordered Xiaomi to serve ASC with the application, exhibits, and opinion by November 28, 2025; gave ASC 21 days after service to respond; and gave Xiaomi 14 days after any response to reply. Because Xiaomi had not requested continued sealing, the court also ordered the entire matter and all filings to date unsealed.
Key Takeaways
- A § 1782 application may be filed or considered ex parte, but ex parte treatment is not automatic and may require a persuasive justification tied to the particular case.
- An applicant’s view that it plainly satisfies § 1782, coupled with the respondent’s ability to challenge discovery later, does not by itself justify bypassing notice and adversarial briefing.
- The ruling addressed only procedure: the court did not decide the statutory requirements, the discretionary Intel factors, or whether Xiaomi may obtain the requested discovery.
Why It Matters
The decision signals that § 1782 applicants in the Northern District of Texas should not assume courts will grant discovery applications ex parte merely because respondents retain later rights to move to quash or seek reconsideration. Applicants may need to identify a concrete reason why notice should not precede a ruling.
The court also identified practical advantages to initial adversarial briefing, particularly when the subpoena target is a party to the foreign litigation rather than an uninvolved third party. Hearing both sides at the outset may allow the court to evaluate the statutory and discretionary requirements without generating a second round of litigation over reconsideration.