Cixishihualongdianziyouxiangongsi v. Seven Sparta Corp

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE CIXISHIHUALONGDIANZIYOUXIANGONGSI CASE NO.: 2:25-CV-01313-JHC d/b/a TYKOR, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 10 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. SEVEN SPARTA CORP., 13 Defendant.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was converted from Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. #6) pursuant to the Court’s Order dated July 22, 2025 (Dkt. #7 at 6). The Court considers Defendant’s lack of opposition to the motion “as an admission that the motion has merit.” LCR 7(b)(2). The Court also held a hearing on the motion on August 4, 2025, at which Defendant did not appear to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied the relevant factors for issuing a preliminary injunction for the reasons discussed in its previous order granting in part a temporary restraining order (TRO), Dkt.

23 # 7. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION (the standard for issuing a TRO is “substantially identical” to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction).

3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1), “The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” As discussed in the Court’s previous order, “an email address included in the Amazon patent infringement complaint is the only known contact information for Defendant.” Dkt. # 7 at 3. On July 23, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a copy of this Court’s TRO order through this email address, six days before the deadline for Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. ## 7 at 6; 8 at 2. That same day, the recipient “acknowledge[d] receipt of the TRO” and confirmed “understand[ing] that, implicit in the Court’s Order, service may be effected via this email address due to its association with the Amazon complaint.” Dkt. # 8-1 at 2. The recipient further stated: “I will continue to forward any documents sent to me for service on Seven Sparta, consistent with the Court’s Order,” and added: “I have forwarded the Order and your correspondence to Seven Sparta and requested direction regarding compliance.” Id. This suggests that Defendant has actual notice of the motion for preliminary injunction. See Soberano v. Guillen, 2021 WL 4970061, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2021) (finding actual notice where the petitioner contacted the respondent’s brother, who received notice of the proceedings). And at the August 4, 2025 hearing, Plaintiff confirmed that Defendant has complied with the TRO. Thus, Plaintiff has sufficiently given notice to Defendant of its motion for a preliminary injunction.

20 The Court, however, is not inclined to enter a final order in this matter without Defendant’s appearance. See id. In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, Plaintiff may either serve Defendant with process (i.e., a summons and a copy of the complaint) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 1 or move for alternative service. See, e.g., Dongguan Zhouda Tech. Co. v. Dai, 2025 WL 2 1772099 (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2025).

3 For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion and ORDERS: 4 @® Defendant SEVEN SPARTA CORP., its officers, agents, employees, and all persons 5 acting in concert or participation with it, are restrained from submitting any further 6 complaints to Amazon or any other third-party platform alleging that Plaintiffs 7 product infringes the ’229 Patent until judgment is entered in this case; 8 @ Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Defendant by email and file proof thereof 9 with the Court within three days of the date of this Order; 10 @ No bond shall be required in connection with this Order.

11 Dated this 4th day of August, 2025.

13 4, Chur _ John H. Chun 14 United States District Judge || ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PAGE NO 3 OF3