Case Highlight | Preliminary Injunction Denied and TRO Dissolved in a Western District of Pennsylvania Utility Patent Action

LawMay attorneys recently represented five cross-border e-commerce clients in a U.S. utility patent Schedule A action. On June 16, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction ("PI") and dissolved the temporary restraining order (TRO) that had frozen the clients' account assets, lifting the restrictions on all five clients' accounts.

Background

The case concerned a U.S. utility patent describing a handheld hidden-camera detection device. The patent owner filed a Schedule A patent infringement action in the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging infringement by numerous cross-border e-commerce sellers.

On May 7, 2026, on the plaintiff's ex parte application, the court issued a TRO freezing the defendants' account assets across e-commerce platforms and enjoining further sales of the accused products. Five clients promptly engaged the LawMay team to defend.

Our Approach

After engagement, the LawMay team completed a full technical analysis of the asserted claims and developed two parallel lines of defense:

First, invalidity. A systematic prior art search identified a clear anticipation problem based on an earlier product, placing the validity of the patent itself in substantial doubt.

Second, non-infringement. The team performed a claim-by-claim comparison for each of the five clients' accused products, demonstrating substantial differences from the asserted claims in each case.

The team submitted a written opposition and appeared at the hearing on June 11, 2026.

Ruling

On June 16, 2026, Judge William S. Stickman IV ruled, expressly finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, denying the PI motion and simultaneously dissolving the TRO and the temporary asset restraints.

The court observed that the plaintiff had relied solely on its own declaration and a declaration of counsel as substantive evidence and, in the face of the defendants' invalidity and non-infringement defenses, had offered only formulaic, conclusory allegations — neither explaining how each accused product infringed nor presenting any technical comparison. The court described that showing as "essentially a nullity vis-à-vis evidentiary value."

In a footnote, the court added:

"Although 'Schedule A' cases are frequently presented to the Court in a formulaic one-size-fits-all matter, they are not. Counsel should be cognizant of their burdens and be prepared to present the evidence required to satisfy those burdens."

That observation carries real significance for cross-border patent defense practice: utility patent cases are quite unlike trademark and copyright matters. A side-by-side product photograph will not support a PI; a plaintiff must provide a limitation-by-limitation claim analysis to meet its burden.

Team Comment

The result reflects the LawMay team's accumulated experience defending U.S. utility patent litigation.

Utility patent matters are highly complex, involving claim construction, prior art searching, validity analysis, and limitation-by-limitation technical comparison — considerably more demanding than design patent or trademark cases. This matter was led by Attorneys Hongchang Deng, Yi Yi, and Xiangru Chen. Drawing on solid technical backgrounds and substantial federal court experience, the three built a complete two-track defense that led the court to dissolve the injunctive relief in full and release the asset freeze, protecting the clients' lawful interests in the U.S. market. Against the wave of Schedule A patent litigation, a firm and well-prepared defense is the most effective response.

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.