Reported / Citable
Background
Haiying Liu brought a “Schedule A” patent-infringement action against a Chinese company and four online sales channels allegedly operating under the “Tiny Land” name. Liu accused them of selling play tunnels and related products that infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,213,764.
Liu moved ex parte for a temporary restraining order barring sales, freezing defendants’ funds, requiring online platforms and payment processors to disable accounts and disclose information, authorizing expedited discovery, and permitting service by email. Liu also sought to keep the defendants’ identities, patent materials, accused-product evidence, and TRO papers under seal.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the ex parte motion in full. It held that Liu had not shown email service on the China-based defendants was permissible under Rule 4(f)(3), because the Hague Service Convention applied on the existing record and, given China’s objection to Article 10 and the Convention’s closed set of authorized methods, prohibited service by email. Liu had not diligently established that defendants’ physical addresses were unknown or attempted Convention service.
The court also found an insufficient showing of personal jurisdiction over four of the five defendants. Only the Amazon storefront was tied to a completed sale delivered in Texas; checkout pages, shopping-cart screenshots, nationwide online availability, and alleged relationships among defendants did not establish Texas contacts for the others. Even as to the Amazon storefront, other defects required denial: Liu failed to justify proceeding without notice, could not use Rule 65 to impose affirmative obligations on nonparty platforms, showed likely infringement at most for one photographed product under claim 9, and sought an unsupported and overbroad asset freeze securing legal damages.
The court denied the motions to seal and directed the clerk to unseal the specified filings because the asserted need for secrecy ended when ex parte relief was denied. Although it rejected the proposed expedited-discovery order, it allowed Liu to seek leave for targeted Rule 45 subpoenas concerning accused products shipped to Texas and to pursue proper domestic or Hague Convention service.
Key Takeaways
- Email service on defendants in China is unavailable when the Hague Service Convention applies, and a plaintiff must diligently investigate physical addresses before invoking the Convention’s unknown-address exception.
- Personal jurisdiction must be established separately for each Schedule A defendant; related storefronts, nationally accessible websites, and uncompleted checkout attempts do not substitute for defendant-specific Texas contacts.
- Rule 65 does not permit an ex parte order directly commanding nonparty marketplaces, banks, or payment processors to disclose records, disable accounts, or freeze funds without adjudicating their rights.
- A patent plaintiff seeking emergency relief must connect its claim chart and evidence to the particular accused products and support any proposed asset restraint and injunction bond with concrete facts.
Why It Matters
The opinion subjects common Schedule A litigation practices to close scrutiny under the Hague Service Convention, personal-jurisdiction doctrine, Rule 65, and the public right of access. It emphasizes that the efficiency of suing online sellers together does not relax the plaintiff’s burden to establish jurisdiction, notice, infringement, and a lawful basis for each form of emergency relief.
The decision also limits attempts to enlist online platforms as enforcement mechanisms through ex parte injunctions. Plaintiffs may pursue focused jurisdictional discovery and proper service, but they cannot obtain sweeping account restrictions, asset freezes, or continued sealing merely by alleging that foreign online sellers may move funds after receiving notice.