Contempt Motion Denied in New York Patent Case

Patterson Belknap reports that the US District Court for the Southern District of New York recently denied a contempt motion against the defendants for alleged violations of a preliminary injunction on grounds related to evidence.

The case is Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe (“Qingdao”) and Vivicute Limited in contempt. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd.

The issue was Lashify’s patent claims related to false eyelash extension systems. The plaintiff argued that the defendants continued selling infringing products online despite court orders.

The dispute arose after the court issued a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction preventing the defendants from selling products that infringed Lashify’s patents. Lashify later moved to hold the defendants in contempt, citing sales through TikTok storefronts and websites, including www.ucoolme.com.

Judge Lewis J. Liman concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to meet the “clear and convincing” standard required to establish contempt.

At a hearing, a Qingdao representative testified that its website was actually “ucoolmelashes.com,” that it had not authorized third-party sales, and it faced numerous copycats it could not control. This testimony became central to the court’s evaluation of the alleged violations.

The decision emphasized several evidentiary principles. Google Translate is insufficient to certify translated documents. Certified translators or qualified witnesses are required. Corporate records obtained through third-party searches remain hearsay unless authenticated by witnesses with direct knowledge. Direct testimony from defendants can rebut circumstantial evidence, such as similarities in products or shared warehouses.

The court found that the plaintiff’s evidence, including translated receipts and corporate background reports, failed to conclusively establish that the defendants violated the injunction.

Lawyers handling contempt motions in patent litigation should know that evidence must meet exacting standards to establish violations of injunctions. Circumstantial indicators alone are often inadequate. Careful preparation and authentication of evidence, combined with scrutiny of direct testimony from alleged violators, are essential.