墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
微信号: Mooting2018
墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
| 编号 | 日期 | 案件进程 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2026-08-11 | COMPLAINT against Schedule A Defendants (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $405, receipt number APAWDC-9794044), filed by XYZ Products. |
| 2 | 2026-08-11 | MOTION to Seal Case by XYZ Products. |
| 3 | 2026-08-11 | BRIEF in Support re [2] Motion to Seal Case filed by XYZ Products. |
| — | 2026-08-12 | Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added. |
| — | 2026-08-12 | CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re [1] COMPLAINT. ERROR: Party did not file disclosure statement as required by either LR 7.1.A or FRCvP 7.1(a)(2). CORRECTION REQUIRED: Filer advised to docket statement within 7 days by using the Disclosure Statement event. This event is located by going to Civil > Other Filings > Other Documents > Disclosure Statement. |
| — | 2026-08-12 | CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re [1] COMPLAINT. ERROR: Form improperly completed. The Civil Cover Sheet does not list the County of Residence for parties. CORRECTION REQUIRED: Filer to resubmit properly completed form using the Errata event, linking the document to the previous entry. |
| — | 2026-08-12 | CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re [2] MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. ERROR: Incorrect relief selected. CORRECTION FOR FUTURE FILINGS: Clerk has corrected relief type to Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FILING AT ISSUE. |
| 4 | 2026-08-12 | PATENT/TRADEMARK DOCUMENTS ISSUED. |
| — | 2026-08-12 | CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re 1 COMPLAINT. ERROR: Form improperly completed. The Civil Cover Sheet does not list the County of Residence for parties. CORRECTION REQUIRED: Filer to resubmit properly completed form using the Errata event, linking the document to the previous entry. |
| — | 2026-08-12 | CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re 1 COMPLAINT. ERROR: Party did not file disclosure statement as required by either LR 7.1.A or FRCvP 7.1(a)(2). CORRECTION REQUIRED: Filer advised to docket statement within 7 days by using the Disclosure Statement event. This event is located by going to Civil > Other Filings > Other Documents > Disclosure Statement. |
| — | 2026-08-12 | CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 2 MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. ERROR: Incorrect relief selected. CORRECTION FOR FUTURE FILINGS: Clerk has corrected relief type to Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FILING AT ISSUE. |
| 5 | 2026-08-12 | ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal filed XYZ Products. According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, "the common law presumes that the public has a right of access to judicial materials." In re Avandia, 924 F.3d 662, 672 (3d Cir. 2019). To overcome this presumptive right of access to judicial materials, "[t]he party seeking to overcome the presumption of access bears the burden of showing 'that the interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption.'" Id. (quoting Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir. 1986)). That is, "[t]he movant must show 'that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.'" Id. (quoting Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994)). And, "[b]road allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient" to meet this burden. Id. at 673 (quoting In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001)). Additionally, the Western District of Pennsylvanias Civil Filing Guide for opening Schedule "A" cases advises parties to move for leave to file documents under seal, as opposed to moving to seal the case in its entirety. See Instructions for Filers - Schedule A Cases (available at: https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/Attorney_Civil_Filing_Guide_October_2025.pdf). Here, XYZ Products requests the Court grant leave "to file under seal the documents associated with [this] action including, but not limited to" certain orders entered by the Court. No. 2 at 1. The Court finds that the 2 Motion is overly broad as it seeks to place the case in its entirety, including certain Court orders, under seal. Accordingly, ZYZ Product's 2 Motion is DENIED without prejudice, and XYZ Products may refile its request in compliance with the procedures of the Western District of Pennsylvania. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 8/12/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. |
| 6 | 2026-08-14 | NOTICE that instant civil action has been designated for placement into the United States District Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program. Parties are directed to fully complete the required 26(f) report, which includes the stipulation of selecting an ADR process. Counsel for plaintiff (or in the case of a removal action, counsel for removing defendant) shall make service of the notice on all parties. |
| 7 | 2026-08-14 | ORDER re Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) Motions to Dismiss as more fully stated in said order. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 8/14/2026. |
| 8 | 2026-08-14 | NOTICE REGARDING TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS: The parties are directed to use the following information to access any telephone conference scheduled in this case. Conference Phone Number: 1 412-547-0144. Phone Conference ID: 359 195 882#. |
| 9 | 2026-08-18 | NOTICE to Change Case Caption by XYZ Products |
| 10 | 2026-08-18 | Disclosure Statement identifying None as corporate parent or other affiliate by XYZ Products. |
| 11 | 2026-08-18 | First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Schedule A Defendants, filed by XYZ Products. |
| 12 | 2026-08-18 | Renewed MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal by XYZ Products. |
| 13 | 2026-08-18 | BRIEF in Support re [12] Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal filed by XYZ Products. |
| 14 | 2026-08-18 | NOTICE of Related Case by XYZ Products |
| 15 | 2026-08-19 | ORDER GRANTING [12] Renewed Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 08/19/26. |
| 16 | 2026-09-16 | SEALED EXHIBIT in support of Exhibit B and Schedule A to Amended Complaint by CASWELL PRODUCTS LLC pursuant to [15] Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. |
| 17 | 2026-09-16 | SEALED DOCUMENT by CASWELL PRODUCTS LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to [15] Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. |
| 18 | 2026-09-16 | SEALED DOCUMENT by CASWELL PRODUCTS LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to [15] Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. |
| 19 | 2026-09-16 | SEALED MOTION This document Sealed pursuant to [15] Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal, by CASWELL PRODUCTS LLC. |
| — | 2026-09-17 | CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re [17] Sealed Document. ERROR: Wrong event selected. CORRECTION FOR FUTURE FILINGS: Clerk has redocketed the entry with the correct event at [19] SEALED MOTION. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FILING AT ISSUE. |
| 20 | 2026-09-17 | MOTION for Alternative Service by CASWELL PRODUCTS LLC. |
| 21 | 2026-09-17 | BRIEF in Support re [20] Motion for Alternative Service filed by CASWELL PRODUCTS LLC. |
| 22 | 2026-09-17 | SEALED DOCUMENT by CASWELL PRODUCTS LLC. This document Sealed pursuant to [15] Order on Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. |
| 23 | 2026-09-19 | NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph J Zito on behalf of CASWELL PRODUCTS LLC. |
| 24 | 2026-09-22 | ORDER DENYING [19] Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by CASWELL PRODUCTS LLC. In its [19] Motion, Plaintiff seeks an ex parte TRO against 22 Defendants identified on Schedule A of the Complaint based on allegations that Defendants are infringing its registered patent. See ECF Nos. 19, 18 at 17. In particular, Plaintiff moves the Court for a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery; as well as an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. ECF No. 19. "Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted only in limited circumstances." Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (citation modified). District courts have "sound discretion" to grant or deny preliminary injunctive relief based on their assessment of four factors: "(1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the risk of irreparable injury absent preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities; and (4) the public interest." Delaware State Sportsmen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Delaware Dep't of Safety & Homeland Sec., 108 F.4th 194, 202 (3d Cir. 2024). "[A]ny one factor may give a district court reason enough to exercise its sound discretion by denying [injunctive relief]." Id. at 203. Here, at this early stage and on this record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the existence of personal jurisdiction over Defendants. See D'Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94, 102 (3d Cir. 2009) (specific personal jurisdiction); Xie v. GUANHE Home essentials, No. 25-265, 2025 WL 1039233, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2025) (Hornak, C.J.) (at the preliminary injunctive relief stage, plaintiff must establish a "reasonable probability" that it "will be able to establish personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence"). In cases like this one, involving internet store fronts, Courts in this circuit have concluded that "personal jurisdiction will not attach absent any evidence of actual sales to the forum state." Zhang v. AAGGO, No. 2:25-CV-85, 2025 WL 1158909, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 21, 2025) (Stickman, J.) (citing cases). In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants cause products accused of infringing the Asserted Patent to be offered for sale and/or sold to residents of Pennsylvania." ECF No. 11 para. 4 (emphasis added). Further, Plaintiff alleges that "[e]ach Defendant targets this forum by accepting payment in U.S. dollars, enabling or causing the accused products to be shipped into Pennsylvania, and, on information and belief, importing and selling such products." Id. (emphasis added); see also id. at para 7. In its briefing, Plaintiff avers that it "analyzed each of the [Defendant Internet Stores] identified in Schedule A and determined that Infringing Products were being offered for sale to residents of the United States, including residents of Pennsylvania." ECF No. 18 at 3 (citing ECF 18-1 para. 7 (Caswell Decl.)); see also id. at 9. Plaintiff's Complaint and briefing do not clearly allege that each and every Defendant transacts actual business in this state. Rather, Plaintiff's allegations (in particular, the guarded use of "r") leave open that Defendants have not sold allegedly infringing products into Pennsylvania but merely offer such products for sale into Pennsylvania. That is not enough to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over the Defendants at this stage. Zhang, 2025 WL 1158909, at *3. "If, on information and belief, Plaintiff believed that each and every Defendant had sold products into this state, Plaintiff should have so stated, and done so unequivocally." Qian v. AiYaYa, No. 2:25-cv-184, ECF No. 49 at 8 (W.D. Pa. July 7, 2025) (Colville, J.). Having determined that temporary injunctive relief is inappropriate, the Court, in its discretion, will also deny Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [19] Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/22/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. |
| — | 2026-09-22 | Order on Sealed Motion |
| 25 | 2026-09-22 | ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE [20] Motion for Alternative Service by CASWELL PRODUCTS LLC. In the [20] Motion, Plaintiff requests leave to serve Defendants via email pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court declines to authorize service by such alternative means at this time. First, where it applies, the Hague Service Convention "is exclusive, and provides the relevant catalogue of possible means of transmission for service abroad." SEC v. Lahr, No. 22-2497, 2024 WL 3518309, at *34 (3d Cir. July 24, 2024). Here, the [11] Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants reside in foreign jurisdictions, ECF No. 11 para 13; and the briefing in support of alternative service avers that Defendants are based in China, ECF No. 21 at 3. Thus, the Hague Convention presumptively governs service. See Vanderhoef v. China Auto Logistics Inc., No. 218CV10174CCCSCM, 2019 WL 6337908, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 26, 2019) (explaining that the United States and China are both signatories to the Hague Convention). China has objected to Article 10 of the Hague Convention, so service by email on Chinese defendants is not authorized under the Convention. See D Squared Plant Traps LLC v. Guangdong Bixing Trading Co., LTD., 716 F. Supp. 3d 352, 356 n.2 (W.D. Pa. 2024) (Conti, J.) ("[C]ourts have refused to authorize service via email when the receiving country has objected to [Article 10 of the Hague Convention]."). And the Court cannot authorize service under Rule 4(f)(3) by means that would violate the Hague Convention. See id. at 357 (quoting Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intl Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 n.4 (9th Cir. 2002)) ("A federal court [is] prohibited from issuing a Rule 4(f)(3) order in contravention of an international agreement, including the Hague Convention."). Finally, Plaintiff has not established that an exception applies such that the Hague Convention is not applicable in this case. See, e.g., Lahr, 2024 WL 3518309, at *34 (explaining that the Convention does not apply where the address of the party to be served is unknown, and that courts employ a reasonable diligence test that examines whether a plaintiff engaged in reasonably diligent efforts to discover a defendant's address). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [20] Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs ability to file a renewed motion for alternative service as appropriate. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/22/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. |
| — | 2026-09-22 | Order on Motion for Alternative Service |