Yu v. X Vision Technology Limited

Background

Bohua Yu brought a copyright-infringement action under Section 501 of the Copyright Act. He alleged that X Vision Technology Limited used his copyrighted instruction sheet in a waterproof phone pouch sold through Amazon. X Vision Technology Limited filed an answer and counterclaim.

The order addressed five motions: the defendant’s motion to seal sales records; the defendant’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; Yu’s cross-motion for those types of emergency relief; the defendant’s motion to strike Yu’s reply brief; and the defendant’s request for expedited discovery before the parties’ required discovery-planning conference.

Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions

A temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are emergency court orders intended to prevent harm before the case is resolved. The moving party generally must show irreparable harm—harm that cannot be adequately repaired with money—and either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships.

The court had already denied the defendant’s emergency motion at a March 2, 2023 hearing because the Amazon product listings at issue had been restored, eliminating any possible irreparable harm. In the written order, the court denied the motion again. The denial was with leave to renew if the defendant later lost access to any Amazon product listings because of complaints made by Yu; the court stated that this did not express a view about the merits of any renewed motion.

The court also denied Yu’s cross-motion. Yu argued that the defendant might transfer, conceal, or destroy accused products and related evidence, and that the alleged infringement could cause lost profits, reputational harm, harm to retailer relationships, and market confusion. The court found these assertions conclusory and speculative. It also noted that the instruction sheet did not appear in the defendant’s Amazon advertisement, that Yu had not shown the pouch was an inferior product, and that lost profits and market confusion could be remedied with monetary damages. Because Yu did not show irreparable harm, the court did not address the other requirements for an injunction.

Motion to Seal

The defendant sought to seal Exhibit A, which contained sales records and showed the precise number of sales during a specified period. The court treated the exhibit as a judicial document because it was submitted as evidence supporting the defendant’s injunction motion. Judicial documents are generally subject to a strong presumption that the public may access them.

The court concluded that the defendant had not identified adequate countervailing interests or higher values that justified sealing the exhibit. The defendant’s concern that a malicious plaintiff or competitor might see its sales data was insufficient. The court denied the motion to seal and directed that any future unredacted version of Exhibit A be filed on the public docket if the defendant intended to rely on it.

Motion to Strike

The defendant asked the court to strike Yu’s reply brief, arguing that it included information for the first time, violated the court’s individual rules, and was filed late. The court found that the reply was untimely because the parties’ extension was measured from counsel’s receipt of a shipping disc, not from the date counsel reviewed it. Nevertheless, the court denied the motion to strike as moot because it had not relied on the reply when deciding Yu’s injunction motion.

Expedited Discovery and Disposition

The defendant sought limited expedited discovery about the creation, use, and registration of the copyrighted material and verification of Yu’s identity, claiming that the information would support its injunction motion. The court denied the request as moot because it had already denied that injunction motion, both at the March 2 hearing and in this order.

The order therefore denied the defendant’s motion to seal; denied the defendant’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with leave to renew on the stated condition; denied Yu’s cross-motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; denied the motion to strike as moot; and denied the motion to expedite discovery as moot. The Clerk was directed to close all open motions.