Seeov Electronic Ltd. v. The Individual, Business Entity, or Unincorporated Association d/b/a The E-Commerce Store Identified on Schedule “A” — Court Grants Preliminary Injunction and Asset Freeze in Design Patent Case Against Online Sellers

Background

Seeov Electronic Ltd. owns U.S. Design Patent No. D1,132,884, titled “Charging Cable,” which claims the ornamental design for a charging cable used to power and connect phones, tablets, headphones, and other portable electronics. Seeov sued nine defendants identified only as the individuals, business entities, or unincorporated associations operating the Walmart.com e-commerce stores listed on Schedule A, alleging they advertised, promoted, offered for sale, or sold products embodying a design substantially the same as the D’884 Patent. According to the complaint and supporting declarations, the defendants’ online stores target consumers in the United States, including in Florida, and Seeov never licensed or authorized any defendant to make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import products embodying the patented design.

After obtaining a temporary restraining order, Seeov moved for a preliminary injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 283 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), along with continued restraint of the defendants’ financial accounts. The court convened a hearing on November 5, 2026, attended only by Seeov’s counsel; no defendant responded to the motion, made any filing, or appeared individually or through counsel. Counsel for Seeov attested to reviewing the product listings, store URLs, product information, and seller information for each Schedule A seller alias.

The Court’s Holding

Applying Federal Circuit law under Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co. and the Winter four-factor framework, the court found Seeov satisfied every factor. On likelihood of success, the court concluded Seeov showed a substantial likelihood of proving that, in the eye of an ordinary observer under Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., the accused products’ design is substantially the same as the design claimed in the D’884 Patent and that defendants sold them without authorization. The court noted the patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282, that the presumption applies at the preliminary injunction stage, and that no defendant appeared to challenge validity.

On irreparable harm, the court credited specific facts: more infringing products will likely appear in the marketplace, Seeov will continue to lose control over its patented design and suffer price erosion, lost market share, and lost sales, and defendants appear to operate from outside the United States and can quickly transfer funds offshore, making any monetary judgment difficult to collect. The balance of equities and the public interest favored relief, and the court held that equitable relief invokes the court’s inherent power to order an asset freeze to assure the availability of permanent relief, citing Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise International Trading; it also noted Seeov may recover defendants’ total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289.

The court granted the motion, preliminarily enjoining defendants and those in active concert with them from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing products embodying the D’884 design or any colorable imitation, and from transferring or disposing of assets. Third-party providers, including Walmart Inc. and financial institutions, must locate and restrain accounts connected to the defendants within two business days. Defendants may move to dissolve or modify on two days’ notice, the $5,000 bond was deemed sufficient, service follows the earlier alternate-service order, and the injunction remains in effect during the pendency of the action.

Key Takeaways

• The court applied the Egyptian Goddess ordinary observer test to find a substantial likelihood that the accused charging cable products infringe the D’884 design patent.
• The § 282 presumption of patent validity applies at the preliminary injunction stage, and no defendant appeared to rebut it.
• The defendants’ apparent offshore operations and ability to quickly move funds supported both irreparable harm and the asset freeze.
• The order binds third parties including Walmart Inc. and financial institutions, requiring them to locate and freeze defendant-connected accounts within two business days.
• Defendants may move to dissolve or modify the order on two days’ notice, and the $5,000 bond posted by Seeov was deemed sufficient.

Why It Matters

This order illustrates the standard Schedule A playbook in design patent cases against anonymous e-commerce sellers: a presumptively valid design patent, unrebutted ordinary observer evidence, and offshore defendants combine to support both a merits injunction and an asset freeze under the court’s inherent equitable authority. The ruling confirms that the § 282 presumption of validity operates at the preliminary injunction stage even when no defendant appears, and that the prospect of recovering total profits under § 289 supports freezing assets to preserve meaningful relief.

For design patent holders policing online marketplaces, the decision underscores that detailed counsel declarations reviewing actual product listings, store URLs, and seller information can carry the plaintiff’s burden on an uncontested record, and that courts will extend restraint orders to marketplace operators and payment processors to make the injunction effective.