d.light design, Inc. et al v. Boxin Solar Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 164

ORDER re 160 Supplemental Briefing. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/4/2015. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

D.LIGHT DESIGN, INC., et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.

9
10

BOXIN SOLAR CO., LTD., et al.,

Docket No. 160

Defendants.

11
12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 13-cv-05988-EMC

13
14

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. Having reviewed the

15

papers submitted, the Court finds that supplemental briefing is appropriate. The Court orders

16

Plaintiffs to file and serve a supplemental brief no later than November 11, 9:00 a.m.,1 that

17

addresses the following issues.
1.

18
19
20
21

22
23

Although the Court previously indicated that Plaintiffs had established personal

jurisdiction sufficient to issue a TRO, see Docket No. 60 (Order at 2) (noting that “Plaintiffs have
at this juncture made a sufficient showing that there is personal jurisdiction (although . . . this
ruling does not preclude Defendants from contesting [such])” because “Plaintiffs have provided
evidence that Defendants willfully copied Plaintiffs’ designs . . . and that Defendants at the very
least should have known that Plaintiffs’ corporate headquarters were in California”), the Supreme
Court decided Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014), shortly thereafter. Plaintiffs shall address

24

how Walden affects the personal jurisdiction analysis.
25

2.
26

Plaintiffs have proposed language to use in a permanent injunction. Plaintiffs shall

address why the Court should not simply convert the existing preliminary injunction (with the

27
28

1

Plaintiffs shall file a proof of service by the same day.

1

language used therein) into a permanent injunction, especially as the proposed permanent

2

injunction does not clearly delimit the territorial reach of the injunction and includes language that

3

does not appear to constitute infringement (e.g., enjoining Defendants from “moving, storing or

4

disposing of . . . the solar light and power products alleged to infringe”).

5

3.

It is not clear from Plaintiffs’ papers whether they seek to have each defendant

6

jointly and severally liable for the entirety of the sum of attorney’s fees and costs. Assuming that

7

it is Plaintiffs’ position (i.e., a single defendant could be held liable for the entire sum), then

8

Plaintiffs shall address why there should be no allocation of fees and costs (even if only in part),

9

particularly when not all Defendants are related to one another. Plaintiffs shall also provide

10

additional information as to what specific costs were incurred.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: November 4, 2015
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2