United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Chenming Zhou, Plaintiff,

v. 

The Individuals, Partnerships and 

Unincorporated Associations 

Identified on Schedule A, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-24013 -Civ-Scola 

Order Granting Preliminary Injunction 

This cause is before the Court upon Plaintiff Chenming Zhou’s Motion for 

Entry of a Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) (ECF No. 13). Zhou moves for the 

entry of a preliminary injunction against a number of the Defendants, 

Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on 

Schedule “A” to the Complaint, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) and Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Zhou voluntarily dismissed some 119 of the 

Defendants (ECF No. 30) in this case and agreed to exclude three other 

Defendants—Joybuy (No. 125), Joybuy America (No. 135) and Joybuy Selection 

(No. 144) (the “Joybuy Defendants”)—from its preliminary injunction motion 

(ECF No. 29). Accordingly, this order applies only to the Defendants who have 

not been dismissed or excluded (the “Injunction Defendants”). 

A hearing was held on January 23, 2023, at which only counsel for 

Plaintiff and counsel for the Joybuy Defendants were present. No other 

Defendants appeared. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record, and the 

relevant legal authorities and grants the motion as to the Injunction 

Defendants (ECF No. 13). 

1. Background 

On December 12, 2022, Zhou filed this action for patent infringement 

alleging that the Defendants, through e-commerce stores, are advertising, 

promoting, marketing, offering for sale, displaying and soliciting for sale, 

using Zhou’s federally registered patent or a substantially similar reflection 

thereof, in violation of federal patent law. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 10). 

Zhou owns a United States Design Patent, No. US D 955,664S, for an 

ornamental design of a pet center control seat (hereinafter the “Patent” or the 

“’664 Patent”). Zhou’s Patent has been registered with the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and is protected from infringement 

under federal patent law. (Am. Compl., Ex. No. 1-1, ECF No. 10-1). Zhou 

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 1 of 6
demonstrated he is the owner of the ’664 Patent by submitting copies of the 

U.S. patent registration. (Id.; see also Chenming Zhou’s Dec. 12, 2022, Decl.

at ¶¶ 4,5 (“Zhou Decl.”), ECF No. 11.)

Zhou is the owner of all rights, title, and interest to the ’664 Patent, 

which Zhou advertises, offers for sale, and sells in authorized e-commerce 

stores such as Amazon, among others. (Zhou Decl. at ¶ 6.) Zhou has expended 

time, money, and other resources developing, advertising and otherwise 

promoting the ’664 Patent. (Id. at ¶ 7.) The ’664 Patent has independent 

economic value and has generated revenue in relation to the retail items 

offered for sale in the authorized e-commerce stores. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Zhou suffers 

irreparable injury any time unauthorized sellers, such as the Injunction

Defendants, sell or offer to sell goods using identical or substantially similar 

copies or derivatives of the ’664 Patent. (Id. at ¶ 8.) 

Without Zhou’s permission or license, the Injunction Defendants are 

promoting, selling, reproducing, offering for sale, and/or distributing goods 

using unauthorized copies of Zhou’s Patent within this district through various 

internet-based e-commerce stores and fully interactive commercial internet 

websites (such as Amazon, ebay and others) operating under their seller 

identification names (“Seller IDs”), as set forth in Schedule A of the Amended 

Complaint. (Compl., Ex. No. 2, “Schedule A,” ECF No. 10-2); see also Zhou 

Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 15.) A simple comparison of the Injunction Defendants’ 

infringing goods with Zhou’s Patent and any layman can observe the Injunction

Defendants’ infringement of Zhou’s exclusive patent rights as the images are 

virtually exact duplicates or substantially similar images to the ’664 Patent.

(Compare Patent at Ex. 1 (ECF No. 10-1) with screenshots of the Injunction 

Defendants’ products on their e-commerce stores (Sch. B., ECF Nos. 12-1 to 

12-9); Humberto Rubio, December 20, 2022, Decl. (“Rubio TRO Decl.”) at ¶ 5, 

ECF No. 12; Zhou Decl. at ¶¶ 12–15.)

2. Legal Standard

The United States Supreme Court held that, in patent disputes, “the 

decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable 

discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised 

consistent with traditional principles of equity.” ebay Inc. v. MercExchange, 

L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 394 (2006). Furthermore, the Patent Act, provides that 

courts may grant injunctive relief on such terms as it may deem reasonable to 

prevent or restrain infringement. Id. at 392 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 283). The 

Patent Act also states that “patents shall have the attributes of personal 

property,” including “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering 

for sale, or selling the invention” Id. (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 261).

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 2 of 6
In a patent case, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a party 

must demonstrate (1) a substantial likelihood of the patentee’s success on 

the merits; (2) irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the 

balance of hardships between the parties; and (4) that granting the 

injunction would not disserve the public interest. Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. 

Hubbell, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 418, 427 (N.D.N.Y. 2007); Suntrust Bank v. 

Houghton Mifflin Company, 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 2001); see also 

Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l Trading Inc., 51 F. 3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 

1995) (affirming entry of preliminary injunction and freezing of assets relying 

on affidavits and hearsay materials). 

Zhou is entitled to a preliminary injunction based on its patent 

infringement claim because it can show all four factors. See Tinnus Enters., 

LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 846 F. 3d 1190, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In addition, 

the standard for granting a preliminary injunction is the same as that for 

granting a temporary restraining order in the Eleventh Circuit. See Schiavo ex 

rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225 (11th Cir. 2055). 

3. Analysis

The declarations Zhou has submitted in support of his Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction support the following conclusions of law:

A. Zhou has a strong probability of proving at trial that the products 

the Injunction Defendants are selling and promoting for sale contain 

unauthorized reproductions and derivatives of Zhou’s Patent.

B. Because of the infringement of Zhou’s Patent, he is likely to suffer 

immediate and irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction order is not 

granted. The following specific facts, as set forth in the Complaint, Motion, and 

accompanying declarations, demonstrate that immediate and irreparable loss, 

damage, and injury will result to Zhou and consumers because it is more likely 

true than not that:

1. The Injunction Defendants own or control internet-based ecommerce stores and websites which advertise, promote, offer for sale, 

and sell products bearing infringing images in violation of Zhou’s rights;

2. There is good cause to believe that more infringing products 

bearing reproductions and derivatives of the Zhou’s Patent will appear in 

the marketplace, and that consumers are likely to be misled, confused, 

and disappointed by the quality of these products; and

C. The balance of potential harm to the Injunction Defendants in 

restraining their trade in infringing goods if a temporary restraining order is 

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 3 of 6
issued is far outweighed by the potential harm to Zhou and his reputation as 

the owner of the Patent.

D. The public interest favors issuance of the preliminary injunction to 

protect Zhou’s patent interests, to encourage respect for the law, and to protect 

the public from being defrauded by the illegal sale of infringing goods.

E. Under 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a), Zhou may be entitled to recover, 

as an equitable remedy, the illegal profits gained through the Injunction

Defendants’ distribution and sales of goods bearing counterfeits and 

infringements of Zhou’s Patent. See Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enters., Inc., 

970 F.2d 552, 559 (9th Cir. 1992) (“An accounting of profits under [section] 

1117(a) is not synonymous with an award of monetary damages: an accounting 

for profits is an equitable remedy subject to the principles of equity.” (alteration

added; alterations adopted; quotation marks omitted; quoting Fuller Brush 

Prods. Co. v. Fuller Brush Co., 299 F.2d 772, 777 (7th Cir. 1962)).

F. Requesting equitable relief “invokes the district court’s inherent 

equitable powers to order preliminary relief, including an asset freeze, in order 

to assure the availability of permanent relief.” Levi Strauss & Co., 51 F.3d at 

987 (citing Federal Trade Commission v. United States Oil & Gas Corp., 748 

F.2d 1431, 1433-34 (11th Cir. 1984)).

G. In light of the inherently deceptive nature of the infringing 

business, and the likelihood that the Injunction Defendants have violated 

federal patent laws, Zhou has good reason to believe the they will hide or 

transfer their ill-gotten assets beyond the jurisdiction of this Court unless 

those assets are restrained.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Zhou’s Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 13) as follows:

(1) Each of the Injunction Defendants, their officers, directors, 

employees, agents, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons in active concert 

or participation with any of the Injunction Defendants having notice of this 

Order are temporarily enjoined and restrained as follows:

a. From manufacturing, importing, advertising, promoting, 

offering to sell, selling, distributing, or transferring any products bearing 

reproductions or derivatives of Zhou’s Patent; and

b. From secreting, concealing, destroying, selling off, 

transferring, or otherwise disposing of: (i) any products, not 

manufactured or distributed by Zhou, bearing reproductions or 

derivatives of Zhou’s Patent; (ii) any evidence relating to the 

manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, distribution, or transfer of 

any products bearing reproductions or derivatives of Zhou’s Patent; or 

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 4 of 6
(iii) any assets or other financial accounts subject to this Order, 

including inventory assets, in the actual or constructive possession of, or 

owned, controlled, or held by, or subject to access by, any of the 

Injunction Defendants, including, but not limited to, any assets held by 

or on behalf of any of the Injunction Defendants.

(2) Each of the Injunction Defendants, their officers, directors, 

employees, agents, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons in active concert 

or participation with any of the Injunction Defendants having notice of this 

Order shall immediately discontinue the use of any unauthorized copies of 

Zhou’s Patent on or in connection with all internet-based e-commerce stores 

owned and operated, or controlled by them, including the internet-based ecommerce stores operating under the Seller IDs.

(3) Each of the Injunction Defendants shall not transfer ownership of 

the Seller IDs during the pendency of this action, or until further Order of the 

Court.

(4) Upon receipt of notice of this Order, the Injunction Defendants 

and any third party financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow 

services, money transmitters, or marketplace platforms who is providing 

services for any of the Injunction Defendants, including but not limited to, 

AliExpress, Alipay, Dhgate, Dhpay, Joom, Wish, Wishpay, Amazon, Amazon 

Pay, Ebay, Etsy, Paypal, and/or Taobao, and their related companies and 

affiliates (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”), must, after receipt of notice 

of this Order, restrain the transfer of all funds, including funds relating to 

ongoing account activity, held or received for the Injunction Defendants’ benefit 

or to be transferred into the Injunction Defendants’ respective financial 

accounts, restrain any other financial accounts tied thereto, and immediately 

divert those restrained funds to a holding account for the trust of the Court. 

Such restraining of the funds and the disclosure of the related financial 

institution account information (as provided below) must be made without 

notice to the account owners or the financial institutions until after those 

accounts are restrained. No funds restrained by this Order shall be transferred 

or surrendered by any Third Party Provider for any purpose (other than 

pursuant to a chargeback made pursuant to their security interest in the 

funds) without the express authorization of this Court.

(5) Upon receipt of notice of this Order, the Injunction Defendants and 

the Third Party Providers must continue to provide Zhou information regarding 

the (i) the identity of all financial accounts and/or sub-accounts associated 

with the internet-based e-commerce stores operating under the Seller IDs 

identified on Schedule “A,” as well as any other accounts of the same 

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 5 of 6
customer(s); (ii) an accounting of the total funds restrained and identities of the 

financial account(s) and sub-account(s) for which the restrained funds are 

related.

(6) Any Injunction Defendant or Third Party Provider subject to this 

Order may petition the Court to modify the asset restraint set out in this Order.

(7) This Order shall apply to the Seller IDs, associated ecommerce 

stores and websites, and any other seller identification names, e-commerce 

stores, domain names, websites, or financial accounts which are being used by 

the Injunction Defendants for the purpose of infringing Zhou’s Patent at issue 

in this action and/or unfairly competing with Zhou.

(8) This Order shall remain in effect during the pendency of this 

action, or until such further dates as set by the Court or stipulated to by the 

parties. 

(9) The Court determines that the bond in the amount of $10,000.00, 

posted by Zhou as evidenced by his notice (ECF No. 25) is sufficient and shall 

remain with the Court until a final disposition or until this preliminary 

injunction is dissolved or terminated or until further Order. 

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida on January 23, 2023. 

______________________________

 Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Court Judge

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 6 of 6