Reported / Citable
Background
Pearsons Luggage & Gifts Inc. and Pearsons Luggage and Gift Inc. sold storage bins on Amazon beginning in 2024. They said the products generated more than $1.5 million monthly—about 35 percent of their monthly revenue.
Amazon delisted the bins in early 2026 after Zhongchuang Jiutong Technology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Jiutong Plastic Manufacturing Co., Ltd., and Ming Liu sent infringement notices based on U.S. Design Patent No. D1,106,675. Pearsons sued for a declaration that the patent was invalid and unenforceable, then sought a preliminary injunction barring further notices and requiring defendants to retract their prior notices to Amazon.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the preliminary-injunction request. It found Pearsons likely to succeed, on the present record, in proving the design patent invalid because the patent’s design appeared substantially the same as designs in defendants’ Chinese and European patents. A USPTO examiner had also issued a non-final reexamination rejection based on those designs.
But the requested injunction would restrict defendants’ patent-enforcement communications and compel retractions. That relief raises First Amendment concerns, so Pearsons had to show the infringement assertions were objectively baseless—meaning no reasonable litigant could realistically expect to prevail. Pearsons did not meet that standard: defendants still held a presumptively valid patent, advanced reasonable distinctions from the prior art, and could yet prevail after factual development. The court also granted Pearsons leave to file a surreply.
Key Takeaways
- A likely showing that a patent is invalid does not itself justify an injunction restricting a patentee’s communications with a marketplace.
- To obtain that form of relief, the movant must establish that the infringement assertion was objectively baseless.
- A non-final USPTO rejection may be persuasive evidence on invalidity, but it is not dispositive.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the especially high bar for accused infringers seeking to stop patent holders from sending infringement notices to online marketplaces. Even where invalidity appears likely at the preliminary stage, courts may decline to compel retractions or prohibit future notices unless the patent assertion is one no reasonable litigant could maintain.