Firm News | LawMay Invited to Present on IP Risk Control and Dispute Response for Cross-Border Sellers Entering the U.S.

On June 13, 2026, the fourteenth Shenzhen University Law School alumni salon was held at the Shouzheng Building on the University's Lihu campus. The theme was "Cross-Border E-Commerce Entering the U.S. — Intellectual Property Risk Control and Dispute Response." Claire Wu, partner at LawMay, was invited as the featured speaker, with partner Peter Li as discussant, addressing the intellectual property risks, platform disputes, and litigation response strategies cross-border sellers commonly encounter in the U.S. market.

For sellers shipping into the United States, intellectual property risk rarely stops at pre-launch trademark, patent, or copyright clearance. Once a risk progresses into a platform complaint, a TRO, a Schedule A mass action, an account freeze, or a default judgment, the legal question converts rapidly into a question of funds, listings, inventory, and operating rhythm. How to build a risk-control framework before entering the market, and how to make timely decisions once a dispute arises, were the focus of the session.

I. Before Entering the U.S. Market: Identify Where the Risk Comes From

Drawing on her U.S. intellectual property experience, Ms. Wu organized the discussion around prevention, monitoring, and response, systematically reviewing the risk types cross-border sellers should focus on when entering the U.S. market. She noted that beyond traditional brand-owner enforcement, NPEs (non-practicing entities) have become a significant source of risk for outbound companies. Many matters are not about counterfeiting or obvious copying, but involve more complex questions: claim construction, functional comparison, the boundaries of a design, copyright registration status, and the scope of trade dress protection.

Across trademarks, patents, copyright, trade dress, and trade secrets, Ms. Wu cautioned — with reference to real scenarios — that a company cannot wait until a product has been complained about and a listing taken down before working backward to examine the rights basis. The first-use principle in U.S. trademark law, the six-month priority window, the role of copyright registration in infringement claims and available remedies, and latent rights issues in packaging, page presentation, images, manuals, and supply chain materials can all affect the room available later in a dispute.

In practice, pre-entry IP risk control is not a single search or a filing. It is a continuing set of judgments across product, brand, page, supply chain, and sales territory: which rights to secure in advance, which materials need a documented chain of authorization, which product structures or designs may need adjustment, and which high-risk categories warrant closer review before launch.

II. Monitoring: Putting Platform Signals, Market Intelligence, and Legal Research on One Map

On monitoring, Ms. Wu proposed a parallel internal-and-external approach from the perspectives of both the rights holder and the accused party. A rights holder should watch platform infringement signals, the spread of comparable products, changes to listing pages, and the timing of evidence preservation. A seller should watch competitors' rights portfolios, platform complaint records, demand letters, test purchases, unusual delisting notices, and litigation involving comparable products.

The value of that monitoring is not only detecting the risk but buying time for the decisions that follow. Where a company can complete preliminary diligence before a complaint, a freeze, or a suit, it can generally judge more quickly whether to adjust a listing, supplement authorization documents, initiate an invalidity or non-infringement analysis, or begin preparing a defense. Where all of that begins only after an account has been frozen, a company easily ends up accepting unfavorable terms under time pressure.

III. TROs and Platform Litigation: Judge Fast, Respond Fast

On response, Ms. Wu focused on how TROs operate in U.S. cross-border IP matters. In some platform litigation, a plaintiff may use an emergency injunction application to prompt delisting, account restrictions, and fund freezes. For a seller, the impact of a case often comes not from the final judgment but from procedural pressure early on.

The priority in a TRO matter is therefore to reach key judgments within a limited window: whether the accused product genuinely falls within the scope of the asserted right; how the sales figures and frozen amounts break down; whether non-infringement, defects in the right, jurisdiction, service, or severance defenses exist; and how the cost and benefit compare across settlement, defense, counterclaim, and motion practice.

Ms. Wu discussed where counterclaims, motions to dismiss, severance, and jurisdictional objections fit in different matters within the federal court system and the relevant procedures. She also cautioned that there is no formula to apply mechanically in TRO matters. Rights bases, evidentiary strength, platform pressure, frozen amounts, sales scale, and the plaintiff's litigation model differ from case to case, and a response strategy has to be built on the specific facts and the procedural posture.

IV. Discussion: Jurisdiction, Alternative Service, and Post-Default Relief

In the discussion, Peter Li drew on his experience in U.S. federal intellectual property litigation to address several procedural difficulties in TRO matters — jurisdictional analysis, differences among the federal circuits in permitting alternative service, paths to relief after a default judgment, and how to weigh settlement cost against the benefit of continued litigation once funds are frozen.

These questions carry real practical weight in cross-border matters. Some sellers, on receiving a platform notice or materials served by email, do not know whether they have been validly served, or whether any remedy remains after a default. Different courts, different procedural stages, and different defendant facts affect what paths remain available. Promptly checking case status, the court's district, the method of service, the scope of the freeze, and the procedural deadlines after a dispute arises therefore bears directly on the room available for negotiation and defense.

V. LawMay Will Continue Following U.S. Legal Risk for Outbound Companies

In the exchange, alumni also raised questions on Amazon platform IP complaints, dispute-resolution and jurisdiction clauses in cross-border cooperation, differences in the difficulty of obtaining a TRO across product categories, relief from default judgments, service of process abroad, and conditions in the U.S. market. Those questions reflect how the legal risk facing cross-border sellers entering the United States has extended from a single infringement assessment into the combined management of platform rules, litigation procedure, supply chain documentation, compliance systems, and operating decisions.

The LawMay team will continue its work on U.S. federal intellectual property litigation, cross-border platform disputes, TRO and Schedule A response, IP portfolio planning, and compliance risk control for companies expanding abroad.