Service by email?

From a motion to DDC:

As e-mail has become more prevalent, courts have not hesitated to
allow service by e-mail, especially when the defendant lives abroad
and is avoiding service. See, e.g., Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio
International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2002)
(concluding that service by electronic mail is “reasonably
calculated to apprise [defendant] of the pendency of the action and
afford it an opportunity to respond;” “when faced with an
international ebusiness scofflaw [and] playing hide-and-seek with
the federal court, email may be the only means of effecting service
of process”); Williams v. Advertising Sex LLC, 231 F.R.D. 483,
488 (N.D.W.V. 2005) (“the Court concludes that service of process
by electronic mail is authorized by and warranted under Rule
4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); Popular
Enterprises, LLC v. Webcom Media Group, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 560,
563 (E.D. Tenn. 2004) (“Service of process by e-mail is reasonably
calculated to apprize defendant of the pendency of this action and
afford it an opportunity to respond.”); see also Philip Morris USA
Inc. v. Veles Ltd, No. 06cv2988, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19780,
at *5 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 12, 2007) (authorizing service of process via
e-mail)[.]


See post by Kyle Jensen at pipra blog,
including

Thesis Advisor for Inventor's Research was not a Co-Inventor. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's inventorship claim, rejecting plaintiff's argument that the named inventor's thesis advisor was a co-inventor.