Case Highlight | Two Injunctions in a Western District of Washington Declaratory Judgment Action Halt an Erroneous Design Patent Complaint

LawMay attorneys recently represented a client in federal litigation arising from a platform design patent complaint, obtaining in succession a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction (PI) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (W.D. Wash.), restoring the client's listings at the earliest opportunity and ultimately bringing the opposing party to a signed settlement.

Background

A cross-border brand seller offered its hair-care products on Amazon and TEMU. A competitor and its affiliate then submitted infringement complaints to Amazon and TEMU based on a U.S. design patent, and the client's listings were removed — substantially affecting its sales, store performance, and commercial interests in the U.S. market.

After reviewing the facts and evidence, LawMay concluded that the platform complaints based on that design patent were plainly open to challenge: if the patent's claim covered the client's product, the patent might well be invalid in light of prior public sales and public disclosure; and if the claim did not cover the client's product, the product did not infringe. On that basis, LawMay filed a declaratory judgment action on the client's behalf in federal district court, seeking declarations of invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement, and relief for the delisting and commercial losses caused by the erroneous complaints.

Our Approach

The LawMay team engaged immediately and executed the following plan:

First, rapid assembly of the complaint record and prior art. The team systematically organized the Amazon and TEMU complaint records, the delisting dates, prior sales records, historical page displays, images in public reviews, and evidence of prior design disclosure — the foundation for non-infringement, invalidity, and emergency injunctive relief.

Second, filing the declaratory judgment action with a contemporaneous TRO application. The complaint asserted that the design patent was invalid and unenforceable and that the client's products did not infringe. Addressing the continuing harm from the delisting, the firm moved for a TRO, focusing its argument on likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest, and asking the court to restrain the opposing party from initiating or maintaining further platform complaints based on that patent.

Third, securing the preliminary injunction. After the TRO issued, the firm pressed forward to a PI to consolidate the relief and ensure that, while the case was pending, the opposing party could not continue to use the patent against the client's products on the platforms.

Fourth, using both injunctions to drive settlement. With the TRO and PI in place, the opposing party's room to maintain its position was substantially reduced. LawMay led the settlement negotiations from that posture, and the parties reached and executed a settlement agreement, with follow-on filings closing the case.

Outcome

Emergency and preliminary injunction proceedings began in October 2025. After roughly eight months, the parties reached a settlement satisfactory to the client in May 2026 and jointly moved in June 2026 for entry of a consent judgment formally concluding the case.

From the grant of the TRO through the rights holder's settlement, LawMay's rapid and targeted federal litigation strategy helped the client restore its market position, limit continuing losses, and protect its lawful interests in the U.S. market.

Team Comment

This was not the traditional pattern of a patent owner suing an accused infringer, but a declaratory judgment action arising from a platform patent complaint. Faced with a competitor's design patent complaints and the resulting delisting, LawMay identified the core of the dispute quickly and, around the central proposition that the patent was likely invalid if it covered the product and not infringed if it did not, obtained two forms of injunctive relief in federal court and steered the matter to a settlement favorable to the client. The case reflects LawMay's practical experience and execution in cross-border e-commerce IP disputes, platform complaint response, federal emergency injunction practice, and declaratory judgment strategy.

This case summary is provided for informational purposes only. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, evidence, applicable law, and the court's discretion in each matter. Past results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in future matters.