Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02012/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02012-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 11cv2012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ACOLYTE TECHNOLOGIES

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11 CV 2012 MMA (CAB)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

[Doc. No. 4]

vs.

JEJA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

LIMITED; et al.,

Defendants.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff Acolyte Technologies Corporation filed a complaint for

patent infringement and unfair competition against corporate Defendant Jeja International

Corporation, Ltd. (“Jeja”) and individual Defendants Evelyn Kim, Inho Kim, Choong Bin Lim,

Sook Ja Lim, and Ceong Lim—doing business as La Bonita—collectively, “Individual

Defendants.” [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff is in the business of developing and designing innovative

LED lighting products to adorn and lighten decor and floral arrangements. [Id. ¶¶17-18.] Plaintiff

owns the two patents in suit—U.S. Patent No. D633,232 (“‘232 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No.

D642,299 (“‘299 Patent”)—which teach an “ornamental design for lighting device.” [Id. ¶¶27-

28.] Plaintiff asserts Defendants are manufacturing, marketing, advertising, importing and selling

lighting devices that infringe the ‘232 and ‘299 Patents.

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-02012-MMA-KSC Document 13 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion pursuant to

a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond.

See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that

“[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the manner required by Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), that failure may

constitute a consent to the granting of that motion or other ruling by the court.” As such, the Court has the

option of granting Plaintiff’s motion because no opposition has been filed, and the Court chooses to do so here.

However, generally, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. See, e.g., Hernandez v. City of

El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998).

- 2 - 11cv2012

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining

order (“TRO”) and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue to enjoin

Defendants’ allegedly infringing conduct. [Doc. No. 4.] Plaintiff’s ex parte application also

requests expedited discovery to determine the identities of certain Doe Defendants whom Plaintiff

believes are “responsible for a large shipment of infringing LED lighting devices scheduled to

arrive in the U.S. in or around September 2011.” [Id. ¶4.] On September 2, the Court issued a

briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s ex parte application; Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s request

for ex parte relief was due by September 7, and a hearing was set for September 9 at 8:00 a.m. 

Defendants did not file an opposition. On September 9, the Court was unexpectedly closed due to

a widespread power outage in San Diego. Accordingly, the Court vacated the hearing on

Plaintiff’s ex parte application and took Plaintiff’s unopposed motion under submission.1

 [Doc.

No. 12.] For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a temporary

restraining order to enjoin certain conduct by the named Defendants. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

To prevail on a motion for temporary restraining order or to receive preliminary injunctive

relief, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating either: (1) a combination of probable

success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious

questions as to success on the merits and irreparable injury along with a sharp tipping of the

balance of hardships in favor of the moving party. These alternative standards are “not separate

tests but the outer reaches of a single continuum.” Int’l Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., 4 F.3d

819, 822 (9th Cir. 1993). 

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-02012-MMA-KSC Document 13 Filed 09/12/11 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 According to Plaintiff, Defendant Jeja is a foreign corporation located in Hong Kong, and

until recently, Jeja offered the infringing devices for sale to customers all over the world via its

website, www.jejahk.com. The individual Defendants, operating as La Bonita in Chula Vista

California allegedly sell the infringing products at their retail location.

- 3 - 11cv2012

“Because injunctive relief prior to trial is a harsh and extraordinary remedy, it is to be

granted sparingly and only in cases where the issues are clear and well defined and the plaintiff

has established a reasonable certainty of prevailing at trial.” Watermark, Inc. v. United Stations,

Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 31, 32-33 (C.D. Cal. 1982) (citing Dymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapeprinter,

Inc., 326 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1964)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not

just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,

632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555

U.S. 7 (2008)). Moreover, “on application for preliminary injunction the court is not bound to

decide doubtful and difficult questions of law or disputed questions of fact.” Dymo Industries, 326

F.2d at 143; see also Mayview Corp. v. Rodstein, 480 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 1973) (reversing

grant of preliminary injunction based on existence of disputed factual issues).

Accordingly, at an “irreducible minimum,” the moving party must demonstrate “a fair

chance of success on the merits” or “questions ... serious enough to require litigation.” Sports

Form, Inc. v. United Press Intern., Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). If

the moving party fails to show any chance of success on the merits, a court need not determine

whether there is potential injury or balance the hardships. Id. Serious questions going to the

merits and a hardship balance that tips sharply towards the plaintiff, however, can support issuance

of an injunction so long as the plaintiff also shows a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the

injunction is in the public interest. Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1131-32.

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s pending motion requests two forms of relief: (1) an injunction against

Defendants, and (2) limited expedited discovery. Plaintiff seeks to restrain and enjoin Defendants

from making, using, selling or offering for sale any infringing products, including the following

devices identified and sold by Defendant Jeja2 on its website: (i) 9 led submersible; (ii) 9 led

submersible LD901_M; (iii) full color 9 led submersible; (iv) waterproof 9 led lights for floral

Case 3:11-cv-02012-MMA-KSC Document 13 Filed 09/12/11 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 11cv2012

design; (v) 14 led submersible LD14_M; and (vi) sub-14. [Doc. No. 4-1.] Plaintiff avers that if its

products are visually compared to Defendants’ infringing devices they are virtually identical to

Plaintiff’s technology protected by the ‘232 and ‘299 Patents. Plaintiff requests immediate

injunctive relief because it was recently informed by one of its customers that one or more

unidentified Doe Defendants are expecting a large shipment of infringing devices in September

2011. Accordingly, in connection with its request for injunctive relief, Plaintiff also requests

limited expedited discovery to determine the identities of the Doe Defendant(s) allegedly involved

in the imminent manufacture, importation, and distribution of the infringing devices. 

(A) Injunctive Relief

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Infringement exists when defendants offer to sell a device that falls within the claims of the

patent(s) at issue, without the patent owner’s permission. Homedics, Inc. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co.,

315 F.3d 1135, 1141 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hoechst-Roussel Pharms. v. Lehman, 109 F.3d

756, 759 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “In a patent infringement case, to satisfy the likelihood-of-success

prong, the patentee must demonstrate that it will likely prove infringement of one or more claims

of the patents-in-suit, and that at least one of those same allegedly infringed claims will also likely

withstand the validity challenges presented by the accused infringer.” Red Bend Ltd. v. Google

Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36217 *43 (D.C. Mass. Mar. 31, 2011) (citation omitted). “In

assessing whether the patentee is entitled to the injunction, the court views the matter in light of

the burdens and presumptions that will inhere at trial.” Id. (citation omitted). “If the alleged

infringer raises a substantial question concerning either infringement or validity, i.e., asserts an

infringement or invalidity defense that the patentee cannot prove lacks substantial merit, the

preliminary injunction should not issue.” Id. (citations omitted). 

A plaintiff may establish a device infringes its patent by proving “that the accused device is

‘substantially similar’ to the claimed design under what is referred to as the ‘ordinary observer’

test.” Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (rejecting the

“novelty” test). Under the ordinary observer test, the Court considers whether in the eye of an

ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially

Case 3:11-cv-02012-MMA-KSC Document 13 Filed 09/12/11 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - 11cv2012

the same such that the observer would be deceived and induced to purchase the infringing device,

supposing it to be the other patented device. Id. at 670.

Here, Plaintiff asserts it will likely succeed on the merits of its infringement claim because

a visual inspection of its patented devices, compared to Defendants’ allegedly infringing devices,

reveals the devices are visually virtually identical. In particular, Plaintiff points to the size and

shape of the round device housing, as well as the number and location of LED lights on top of the

devices. Plaintiff asserts Defendants’ infringing devices possess 9 lights that are arranged in the

same general pattern as the 9 lights atop Plaintiff’s patented devices. In addition, Defendants’

allegedly infringing products contain the same textured pattern on the outside surface of the

housing. Accordingly, an ordinary observer would be deceived into believing the infringing

device was actually the patented device owned by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also asserts it will likely succeed on the issue of validity because the issuance of a

patent entitles the patent holder to a strong presumption of validity. 35 U.S.C. § 282 (patents are

presumed valid). Accordingly, in the absence of any opposition by Defendants, the Court finds

Plaintiff has demonstrated it will likely succeed on its infringement claim because its patents are

presumed valid, and the allegedly infringing devices appear substantially identical to Plaintiff’s

products. For the same reasons, the Court also finds Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on

its unfair competition and misappropriation claims, which arise out of Defendants’ unlawful

infringement activities.

2. Irreparable Injury

To justify immediate injunctive relief, Plaintiff must also demonstrate that it may suffer 

irreparable injury if Defendants’ wrongful conduct is not enjoined. Int’l Jensen, Inc., 4 F.3d at

822. Here, Plaintiff alleges it will suffer several types of irreparable harm, including injury to its

reputation and goodwill because its devices are unique and of a higher quality than the inferior

infringing products. [See Doc. No. 4-1, Declaration of Marvin Feigenbaum, ¶¶24-25.] Plaintiff

also argues it will suffer a decrease in market share because Defendants directly compete with

Plaintiff and vie for the same customers Plaintiff services. [Id.] According to Plaintiff, if

Defendants are not enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to lose sales to customers and its

Case 3:11-cv-02012-MMA-KSC Document 13 Filed 09/12/11 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 - 11cv2012

corresponding leading position in the market. In addition, Plaintiff fears it will suffer irreversible

price erosion because Plaintiff has already had to offer its customers discounts to compete with

Defendants’ less expensive infringing devices. [Id. ¶27-28.] 

The declaration of Plaintiff’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Feigenbaum, which supports

Plaintiff’s assertion of anticipated irreparable injury, coupled with Defendants’ lack of objection

suggests temporary injunctive relief is appropriate. See, e.g., Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. All

Professional Realty, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6604 *36 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2011) (citing WMX

Techs. v. Miller, 80 F.3d 1315, 1325 (9th Cir. 1996) (“damage to goodwill is an irreparable

harm”)); Nutrition 21 v. U.S., 930 F.2d 867, 871 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (potential loss of market share, if

substantiated with some evidence, can support issuance of injunctive relief).

3. Balance of Hardships

This factor also weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff’s patents at issue are presumed valid,

and as the patent owner, Plaintiff has the right to exclude others from practicing its patented

technology. Conversely, Defendants have no right to build a business by infringing Plaintiff’s

patents. Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

Because Plaintiff has shown it may reasonably suffer irreparable injury to its reputation and

goodwill if Defendants are not enjoined, and Defendants have not identified any harm they will

suffer if they are enjoined, this factor suggests injunctive relief is warranted. 

4. Public Policy 

Public policy favors enforcing Plaintiff’s rights secured by its patents, and the public has

an interest in fair competition. Accordingly, in the absence of any opposition by Defendants, the

Court finds this fourth and final factor also weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. 

(B) Expedited Discovery

In light of the Court’s determination that injunctive relief is appropriate, the parties are

directed to contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Cathy A. Bencivengo within three days of

issuance of this Order to schedule an early case management conference to resolve Plaintiff’s

request for limited expedited discovery. See Civ. L.R. 72.1.b (discovery motions determined by

magistrate judge).

Case 3:11-cv-02012-MMA-KSC Document 13 Filed 09/12/11 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 - 11cv2012

(C) Bond

Under Rule 65(c), “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary

restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to

pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or

restrained.” The Ninth Circuit has “recognized Rule 65(c) invests the district court ‘with

discretion as to the amount of security required, if any.’” Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906,

919 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir.1999)). 

“The district court may [therefore] dispense with the filing of a bond when it concludes there is no

realistic likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoining his or her conduct.” Id. 

Here, Plaintiff requests the Court enter a small nominal bond and asserts a large bond

would be unduly burdensome because Plaintiff is a small company. [Doc. No. 4-1, p.17; but

compare Feigenbaum Decl. ¶26 (Plaintiff “is a relatively small company”) with ¶5 (Plaintiff has

enjoyed “steadily increasing sales totaling millions of dollars annually”).]Given the limited record

available at this time, the Court finds a bond of $5,000 is appropriate. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes a narrowly tailored order restraining

certain limited conduct by the named Defendants until completion of the expedited discovery

proceedings is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Defendant Jeja International Corporation, Ltd., and individual Defendants Evelyn

Kim, Inho Kim, Choong Bin Lim, Sook Ja Lim, and Ceong Lim—doing business as La

Bonita—are hereby enjoined and restrained, pending the completion of limited expedited

discovery as permitted by Magistrate Judge Bencivengo, as follows. Defendants, including their

officers, agents, servants, and employees shall not make, use, sell, or offer for sale the following

products, identified by Jeja as:

(i) “9 led submersible”

(ii) “9 led submersible LD901_M”

(iii) “full color 9 led submersible”

(iv) “waterproof 9 led lights for floral design”

Case 3:11-cv-02012-MMA-KSC Document 13 Filed 09/12/11 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 - 11cv2012

(v) “14 led submersible LD14_M”

(vi) “sub-14”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(2) The parties shall contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Cathy A. Bencivengo

within three days of issuance of this Order to schedule an early case management

conference to resolve Plaintiff’s request for limited expedited discovery.

(3) Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of $5,000 within seven days of entry of this

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02012-MMA-KSC Document 13 Filed 09/12/11 Page 8 of 8