Reported / Citable
Background
Shenzhen Luoman Technology Co., Ltd sued 15 e-commerce defendants identified in a sealed Schedule A, alleging infringement of its patent. It sought an ex parte temporary restraining order barring the defendants from selling the accused products, asserting that their substantially similar listings and product images suggested coordinated efforts to distribute the same infringing product through multiple aliases.
The plaintiff also sought permission to serve the foreign e-commerce defendants electronically. It represented that the defendants communicated with customers through email or other electronic channels and that valid or verifiable physical addresses were unavailable.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Robert Pitman denied the TRO motion because the plaintiff had not adequately shown that the 15 defendants could properly be joined for purposes of a single TRO. Similar product images and accused-product features did not establish that the defendants were acting together in the same transaction or series of transactions. The exhibits instead showed varying prices, product names, and seller names, and the complaint did not supply sufficient common identifiers tying the defendants together.
The court granted alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). It authorized service by email containing a link to a Dropbox folder holding the complaint and relevant pleadings or orders, sent to email addresses associated with each defendant’s storefronts or provided to third-party service providers. The court also said the plaintiff had not properly moved for expedited discovery, though it indicated it would be inclined to permit targeted discovery concerning sales and listing histories related to the infringement contentions if good cause were shown in a proper motion.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff seeking one TRO against multiple Schedule A defendants must substantiate Rule 20 joinder, not merely allege similar products or listings.
- Differences in seller names, pricing, and product names may undermine an inference that defendants are acting in concert.
- Electronic service may be authorized for foreign e-commerce defendants when it is reasonably calculated to provide notice and physical addresses are unavailable.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces that mass online-infringement cases require concrete allegations connecting defendants before a court will impose consolidated emergency relief. Plaintiffs must identify facts showing a shared transaction or coordinated conduct rather than rely on the similarity inherent in claims involving the same intellectual property.
At the same time, the ruling preserves a practical path for serving foreign online sellers through electronic channels and leaves open the possibility of narrowly tailored expedited discovery tied to the asserted infringement.