Hangzhou Zhaohu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Boer Tech

Background

On August 4, 2022, the court denied Hangzhou Zhaohu Technology Co., Ltd.’s motion for a temporary restraining order and set case deadlines. The court required the parties to complete discovery by November 4, 2022, exchange expert reports by September 28, 2022, and gave Hangzhou Zhaohu ten days to amend its complaint to add Hangzhou Johnson Technology Co., Ltd. (Johnson Tech) as a defendant. The court stated that, if Hangzhou Zhaohu did not add Johnson Tech, Johnson Tech would have ten days to ask to intervene to protect its trademark interests.

Hangzhou Zhaohu did not amend its complaint within the ten-day period. It explained that it had been planning to voluntarily dismiss the claims against the defendants and was discussing a dismissal agreement with them. Johnson Tech then moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and filed four counterclaims, including an appeal from a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b). After that filing, Hangzhou Zhaohu filed an amended complaint adding Johnson Tech as a defendant and asserting a new unfair-competition claim.

Motions and Positions

The defendants filed an emergency motion asking the court to strike the amended complaint as untimely, strike the pending motion for a preliminary injunction, and schedule an immediate pretrial conference. The court understood this request as asking it to sanction Hangzhou Zhaohu for failing to comply with the August 4 order.

Hangzhou Zhaohu responded that it had not amended earlier because it expected to dismiss the case, but that Johnson Tech’s counterclaims made continued litigation inevitable. Hangzhou Zhaohu also requested 30 additional days of discovery to support its preliminary-injunction motion.

Rulings

The court declined to strike either the amended complaint or the pending preliminary-injunction motion. It agreed that the amended complaint was technically late but found that striking the filings was not warranted because Hangzhou Zhaohu had offered a plausible explanation. The court stated that, because the case would proceed, both sides should have a full opportunity to pursue their claims against the relevant parties.

Because Johnson Tech had been added as a defendant, the court denied Johnson Tech’s motion to intervene as moot. The court granted Hangzhou Zhaohu’s request for 30 additional days of discovery. It set December 5 as the new discovery-close date, stated that there would be no extension of the expert-report exchange deadline, and directed the parties to submit a joint discovery-progress letter by October 28. The court also directed Hangzhou Zhaohu to serve Johnson Tech within five business days and ordered the clerk to remove the motions at Docket Numbers 39 and 44 from the list of open motions.

The order addressed filing deadlines, discovery, intervention, and the preliminary-injunction schedule. It did not decide whether Hangzhou Zhaohu was entitled to a preliminary injunction or resolve the parties’ underlying claims.