Chengdu Tops Technology Co. v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations…

Background

Chengdu Tops Technology Co. Ltd. alleged that merchant defendants infringed its patent for a 360-degree “photobooth.” On May 22, 2025, Chengdu Tops moved for a temporary restraining order, or TRO. A TRO is an emergency court order that temporarily restricts conduct while a case continues. Chengdu Tops sought to stop the defendants from manufacturing, importing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, and profiting from allegedly infringing products.

Legal standard

The court explained that the standard for a TRO is the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. The party requesting this extraordinary relief must show irreparable harm, meaning harm that is actual and imminent, cannot be adequately remedied with money, and would occur without the order. It must also show a likelihood of success on its claim and that the balance of hardships favors the requested relief. The court identified irreparable harm as the most important requirement.

Irreparable harm

The court held that Chengdu Tops had not shown irreparable harm. Chengdu Tops argued that the alleged infringement could cause consumer confusion, loss of customer goodwill, and reputational damage. But the court found those assertions speculative because Chengdu Tops did not identify its own competing product or provide specific facts or evidence showing how competition would harm its goodwill or reputation.

The court also considered Chengdu Tops’s delays. The defendants had allegedly been selling products in the United States since 2021, and Chengdu Tops’s patent had issued nearly three years before the motion. After filing the TRO motion, Chengdu Tops asked to postpone the hearing by a week because its counsel was on vacation and received a three-week extension to file its reply. The court concluded that these delays undermined Chengdu Tops’s claim that immediate harm required emergency relief.

Likelihood of success

The court independently held that Chengdu Tops had not shown a likelihood of success on the patent-infringement claim. The complaint did not identify the “222 Patent,” describe the design it covered, identify Chengdu Tops’s products, or identify the defendants’ accused products. Although Chengdu Tops attached a copy of the patent and a list of hyperlinks to hundreds of online products, it did not explain what the attachments showed, compare the patent with the accused products, or explain how the products infringed.

The motion papers also relied on unsupported assertions that the defendants sold or imported products that directly infringed the patented designs. Chengdu Tops later stated that it had submitted a detailed technical-expert declaration, but the court found that no such declaration had been filed in the case.

Disposition

The court denied Chengdu Tops’s motion for a temporary restraining order. It stated that a separate order would schedule an initial pretrial conference and directed the clerk to terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 4. The court did not decide whether the defendants ultimately infringed the patent.