Reported / Citable
Background
GoodEgg Stuff LLC sued online sellers identified on Schedule A, alleging that they sold unlicensed poultry product tools infringing U.S. Patent No. 12,089,567. GoodEgg sought an ex parte temporary restraining order barring sales and imports of the accused products, freezing defendants’ assets, and permitting expedited discovery.
The court initially denied GoodEgg’s TRO request because its proposed order contained errors, including references to sewing products and use of a design-patent infringement standard even though GoodEgg asserted a utility patent. GoodEgg filed a corrected second TRO motion and again sought permission to serve the alleged offshore sellers by email.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Robert Pitman granted the second TRO motion in part. GoodEgg had shown some likelihood of success through claim charts and evidence that the Schedule A defendants offered the accused poultry tools for sale into Texas without authorization. The court also found a risk that defendants could move assets beyond the court’s reach before receiving notice.
But the court declined to impose GoodEgg’s requested injunction against making, offering for sale, selling, or importing the products. Given the serious errors in GoodEgg’s original TRO papers and the absence of defendants’ responses, the court limited relief to an asset restraint and expedited discovery. The court ordered third-party platforms and payment providers to identify and restrain connected accounts and funds, subject to a $10,000 bond. It also authorized email service under Rule 4(f)(3), finding that defendants’ addresses were unknown and that email service was not prohibited by the Hague Convention under those circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- The court entered a 14-day ex parte TRO freezing defendants’ third-party-held funds, but did not enjoin product sales or imports.
- Patent plaintiffs seeking emergency relief must use the correct infringement standard; filing errors can materially limit TRO relief.
- Email service was permitted for alleged China-based online sellers whose physical addresses were unknown.
Why It Matters
The order shows that courts may permit rapid asset preservation and discovery in online-counterfeiting or infringement cases even when they withhold the more consequential remedy of a sales injunction. It also underscores that careful, patent-specific TRO briefing matters, particularly where relief is sought without notice to the opposing parties.