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

Filing 74

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 45 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

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

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-5988 EMC

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

12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 45)
13
14
15

Plaintiffs d.light design, Inc. and d.light design, Ltd. (collectively, “d.light”) have filed suit

16

against ten different China-based defendants (only some of which are allegedly related), asserting

17

that they have, inter alia, infringed nine different design patents, infringed the trade dress of three

18

different d.light products, infringed the d.light trademarked name, and engaged in unfair

19

competition. Previously, the Court granted d.light’s second motion for a temporary restraining

20

order, see Docket No. 60 (Order at 4) (enjoining Defendants “from selling, offering for sale, or

21

causing the sale of the allegedly infringing products in the United States”), and ruled that the TRO

22

should last until the date of the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion. See Docket No. 67

23

(order). Currently pending before the Court is d.light’s motion for a preliminary injunction.1 No

24

written opposition was filed to the motion. Nor has any Defendant otherwise made an appearance in

25

this action despite the fact that Plaintiffs have taken significant steps to notify Defendants of this

26

action and this motion.

27
28

1

The Court deemed d.light’s second motion for a TRO to be its motion for a preliminary
injunction.

1
2

For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for a preliminary
injunction.

3
4

I.
A.

5

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard
“‘A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

6

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

7

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Network

8

Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, 638 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v.

9

Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). The Ninth Circuit has held that
the “serious questions” approach survives Winter when applied as part
of the four-element Winter test. In other words, “serious questions
going to the merits” and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward
the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other
two elements of the Winter test are also met.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Drakes Bay

15

Oyster Co. v. Jewell, No. 13-15227, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 915, at *28 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2014)

16

(stating the same).

17

B.

18
19

Analysis
In granting the TRO, the Court analyzed the same factors above as follows:

24

Here, Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the
merits based on, inter alia, the substantial similarities between the
designs of their products and the products of Defendants, the apparent
distinctiveness of Plaintiffs’ trade dress and trademark, and the
apparent nonfunctionality of Plaintiffs’ trade dress. Plaintiffs have
also made out an adequate showing that they are likely to suffer
irreparable harm without temporary injunctive relief (e.g., loss of good
will and/or reputation). Finally, there is nothing in the record (at least
not at this point) to suggest that Defendants would be unduly harmed
or that the public interest would suffer if a TRO were to be issued
(particularly as so limited by the Court).

25

Docket No. 60 (Order at 1-2). The Court subsequently found there was good cause for extending the

26

TRO to March 13 because “the grounds for originally granting the TRO continue to exist.” Docket

27

No. 67 (Order at 1).

20
21
22
23

28

2

1

As the grounds for originally granting the TRO continue to exist even now, and no

2

Defendant has made an appearance to oppose the preliminary injunction, in spite of Plaintiffs’

3

numerous notice efforts, the Court deems it appropriate to convert the existing TRO into a

4

preliminary injunction.

5

To the extent d.light asks for broader relief at this juncture, its request is granted in part and

now (i.e., in advance of the initial case management conference). To the extent d.light seeks relief

8

such as an order freezing Defendants’ assets or an order disabling Defendants’ websites and selling

9

pages, the request is denied without prejudice. Such relief implicates the rights of third parties and,

10

as the Court previously noted, d.light has failed to cite any authority showing that the Court has the

11
For the Northern District of California

denied in part. More specifically, the request is granted to the extent d.light seeks to begin discovery

7

United States District Court

6

authority to act vis-a-vis the third parties, particularly in the absence of any notice to them. See

12

Docket No. 58 (Order at 2) (emphasis added).

13

Finally, the Court notes that, although it is granting d.light the relief described above, this is

14

not an endorsement of proper joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 299. At the hearing, d.light suggested

15

that, if joinder may be a problem, that is an issue for a Defendant to raise. However, d.light did not

16

cite any authority establishing that this Court is barred from raising the issue sua sponte. Moreover,

17

even if the Court accepts that “questions of fact common to all defendants . . . will arise in the

18

action,” § 299 also requires that

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

parties that are accused infringers may be joined in one action as
defendants . . . only if . . . any right to relief is asserted against the
parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising
out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United
States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product or
process.
35 U.S.C. § 299.
II.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, d.light’s motion for a preliminary injunction is granted as its
request for early discovery. The terms of the preliminary injunction are as follows:
Defendants (including their officers, agents, service,
employees, attorneys, and others in active concert or participation with
them) are hereby enjoined from selling, offering for sale, or causing

3

1
2
3

the sale, in the United States, of products that (1) infringe d.light’s
design patents (the ‘571, ‘590, ‘430, ‘591, ‘417, ‘401, ‘243, ‘979, and
‘817 patents) and/or that (2) infringe d.light’s trade dress (specifically,
with respect to d.light’s S2, S20, and S300 products) or trademark
(with respect to the “d.light” name).

4

The preliminary injunction shall continue pending resolution of this lawsuit but Defendants are not

5

barred from moving for dissolution of the preliminary injunction prior to the termination of the

6

action. Moreover, Plaintiffs may seek to expand the scope of relief upon a proper showing.

7

The Court orders Plaintiffs to immediately serve a copy of this order on all Defendants by the

8

best means practicable. Plaintiffs shall file a declaration confirming and describing service no later

9

than March 21, 2014.
This order disposes of Docket No. 45.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: March 13, 2014

15

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4