In one of the more recent instances that sparked my memory, I thought back to a decision made in the Western District of Texas. This decision involved three topics I find especially interesting: China, Amazon, and the challenges involved with serving foreign defendants. This particular case concerned Intellectual Property (IP) rights and brought me back to my coverage on the issue; I found it via a quick search using the term “kroub China” on the Above the Law website. The case in question was fittingly named, “China At Your Service.”
The legal issues I covered back in 2020 highlighted the challenges of serving domestic Chinese companies with IP disputes filed in the U.S. These challenges had become a deterrent, discouraging IP owners from bringing suit against such companies for infringement. This led to an increased trend toward litigation against U.S. customers of these Chinese companies. By 2020, however, there were indications that these difficulties were beginning to subside. An example of this was a decision by the Northern District of Ohio allowing an experienced patent plaintiff to serve a Chinese defendant through that defendant’s registered email address on platforms such as Amazon, Ebay, and Facebook.
Jump to 2024, and it is evident how far things have come since then. One particular case, Sportspower Ltd. v. Zhejiang Hongcheng Information Tech Co. Ltd., demonstrates how the dynamics have shifted in favor of those seeking to serve Chinese defendants. In this case, a Hong Kong-based design patent owner launched a lawsuit against a China-based competitor selling trampolines with safety enclosure nets on Amazon under the name “Blanketown”.
At first, the request to allow alternative service was denied. The court insisted on attempting to serve the defendant under the Hague Convention and asked for additional evidence linking Blanketown and the attorney registered as its representative. Upon a renewed petition, however, the motion was granted, as efforts to serve under the Hague Convention failed due to the Chinese Ministry of Justice’s inability to locate the defendant’s office in China. As a result, the court permitted service via email on the defendant’s trademark prosecution attorney and through “Blanketown’s Amazon message interface,” providing a twofold approach to blanket the defendant with service.
The evolving landscape on service issues in IP litigation against foreign firms, especially in ways that utilize modern technology and consider the realities of online marketplace sales, is an exciting area to observe. Despite the initial delays due to attempts at service under conventional channels like the Hague Convention, the utilization of alternative methods when such conventional paths fail offers hope for plaintiffs.
As always, feel free to forward comments or questions to me via email from the Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov, PLLC’s website or Twitter @gkroub.